If it is copyright eligible it has copyright automatically when created.
Congratulations for missing the point, and arguing a pedantic hair-splitting detail that was omitted merely because it is not relevant to the analysis.
In general, when something is usually true, and also true in the specific case, and it is stated in an overly-broad way, it doesn't really cry out for correction, especially when you're dishonestly claiming it is "wrong." And that it was a "guess." No, it was the accurate truth in 7 words, that corrected nonsense that implied that trademarks do not automatically receive copyright; except that, the vast majority of trademarks were in fact copyrighted at their moment of inception! Long before they were registered as trademarks, in fact, leaving the trademark designation to be entirely irrelevant and misleading.
Are you being intentionally misleading, or do you just not understand where copyright comes from in the US? Do you even know what you linked to? Did you know that it says right in it that everybody involved in that matter agrees that use as a trademark is irrelevant to copyrightability?
Did you even consider basic philosophical identity, and that when I said "Any image creates is copyrighted on creation" that only includes images that were created? And the images you're claiming don't receive copyright are only ones that are so unoriginal, nothing was created. Your own silly hair-splitting should prove you wrong, if you bothered to split the hairs you purport to split.
No, a still image is exactly the same. You fell off the hypothetical. A mirror image is not a "copy." A mirror's reflection of a still image is not a copy of that image. Holding up a mirror to let people view is the same as letting people climb onto the crane to view.
If the photographer is allowed to post it to twitter, and it is embedded inside a page but is still served from twitter, that isn't any new copy. And if twitter isn't allowed to publish it, then it can be shut off at the source. Then it might matter; then the people who linked to it may or may not have been doing some naughty thing at the edge of copyright law. But if twitter is allowed to publish it, and twitter allows it to be embedded, then that is legit and there is no question.
Right, but that wasn't even close to the question. It is mealy-mouthed bullshit that avoids the question.
Why would you respond to that observation by repeated the mealy-mouthed bullshit? You already know it doesn't have any value in the context you're posting it.
Ironically, the appeal might have saved the plaintiff a lot of money, and the plaintiff has the smaller pockets. But the judge looked at who was asking for it, and said no way too early.
They already got settlements from most of the original defendants, and they need new law to eventually win. The whole point of why they can get settlements is for the defendants to avoid the cost of trial, not because of the eventual outcome!
It is also well-litigated in the example of baseball games; you can absolutely watch from a crane or something next door if you can find a view.
Televising it wouldn't be allowed.
Mirrors don't "create" a "copy," and we can prove that by displaying the unaltered mirror in the courtroom to see if it contains the work, or not.
In the case of computers, ephemeral copies created inside of the computers memory for the purpose of displaying the image do not create a discrete copy; computers do not violate copyright by being built with cache, or by having separate main memory and video memory. A physical mirror is an even easier case.
would be if the congress would take the time to understand the issue and bass and amendment
Lots of people are going to agree that congress doesn't take the time to understand the issues, or the amendments.
But who in their right mind thinks congress doesn't understand bass?!? If you don't think they have time for fishing, you've never seen their schedule!
Ping pong balls are a traditional object of make-work; in economics, everybody understands that if you have high unemployment and you pay workers to dig ditches, fill them with ping-pong balls, and then dig them back up, you stimulate the economy.
So in examples like this, it is very much like the food examples; they're just thinking about their paycheck and implying that you're not supposed to take their presentation seriously as if it was actual work, because it wasn't; it was make-work.
I scanned your answer very heavily in attempting to detect if you provided an answer to my question, or not. And it appears to be "or not."
You posted a misleading comment; I asked a simple question for narrow clarity on a very specific aspect of it; you responded with a bunch of mealy-mouthed bullshit that avoids the question.
Clearly, the answer is that it was not all true as stated, but is one of those infamous "versions of the truth" instead. Truth doesn't have versions, though. There is either a lie, or an error, and you deny that there is any error. I'll leave it at that.
That's like claiming that if a lack of consequences would increase the rate of theft, you've proven theft is good because people prefer to do it. It is complete horseshit. Individual preference tells you nothing about if an outcome is desirable, and it doesn't even try to address the topic of desirability.
Do you also think that drug addicts prefer to be drug addicts, because they've demonstrated a pattern of behavior? Are all patterns of behavior inherently desirable? Is that truly a natural characteristic of behavior patterns?
If there was actually a shortage of pilots then flights would have to be cancelled.
Cancellations happen due to short term unpredictable things.
For long term predictable factors there's no need to cancel, because you wouldn't (and couldn't) schedule it in the first place.
You might have an unrealistic concept of what "scheduling" means. What if it turns out that the typical case is not something you believe will happen for sure, but just an aspirational goal? (spoiler: this is the case)
That something is scheduled tells you, literally, that it has been written down on a piece of paper called a "schedule." No more, no less.
You've quite obviously never used the SysV answer to IPC. Don't be a dunce, look this shit up before posting since you don't work with IPC technologies. (d-bus is the modern IPC mechanism)
You don't get to have d-bus be some kind of criminal, it is in fact a required part of a modern *nix system, because IPC is a thing. And no, nobody is even willing to attempt use of semaphores anymore.
I'm willing to build you a custom one for cost + 20%.
Please be advised that the price is directly related to the area about which the drink holder can hover; the cheapest option hovers in a fixed position over a pedestal, and only costs 4 figures.
I can splatter some paint on it for free in an artistic way, but don't expect a Jackson Pollock.
Your math might be suspect; a war would cause a lot of pilots to be recalled, even ones whose service would otherwise have already been finished for years.
Training increases related to a war would likely focus on unmanned aircraft.
Is that all true as stated, or is the "$70-80 an hour" back-calculated by taking the annual salary and dividing what it would be for a 40 hour week? Because by your numbers, pilots with seniority make less than the starting wage.
Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.
I know, that's crazy talk.
That's almost the sort of talk you'd expect if there was a pilot shortage, but it is so far from reality that there obviously isn't a shortage, just a bunch of whiny companies.
If there was a shortage, they'd be offering free training and guaranteed work schedules.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is copyright eligible it has copyright automatically when created.
Congratulations for missing the point, and arguing a pedantic hair-splitting detail that was omitted merely because it is not relevant to the analysis.
In general, when something is usually true, and also true in the specific case, and it is stated in an overly-broad way, it doesn't really cry out for correction, especially when you're dishonestly claiming it is "wrong." And that it was a "guess." No, it was the accurate truth in 7 words, that corrected nonsense that implied that trademarks do not automatically receive copyright; except that, the vast majority of trademarks were in fact copyrighted at their moment of inception! Long before they were registered as trademarks, in fact, leaving the trademark designation to be entirely irrelevant and misleading.
Are you being intentionally misleading, or do you just not understand where copyright comes from in the US? Do you even know what you linked to? Did you know that it says right in it that everybody involved in that matter agrees that use as a trademark is irrelevant to copyrightability?
Did you even consider basic philosophical identity, and that when I said "Any image creates is copyrighted on creation" that only includes images that were created? And the images you're claiming don't receive copyright are only ones that are so unoriginal, nothing was created. Your own silly hair-splitting should prove you wrong, if you bothered to split the hairs you purport to split.
And yet, I knew that before making my comment, as it doesn't change the analysis in any meaningful way.
Did you know that awards get paid after the case is entirely finished?
No, a still image is exactly the same. You fell off the hypothetical. A mirror image is not a "copy." A mirror's reflection of a still image is not a copy of that image. Holding up a mirror to let people view is the same as letting people climb onto the crane to view.
If the photographer is allowed to post it to twitter, and it is embedded inside a page but is still served from twitter, that isn't any new copy. And if twitter isn't allowed to publish it, then it can be shut off at the source. Then it might matter; then the people who linked to it may or may not have been doing some naughty thing at the edge of copyright law. But if twitter is allowed to publish it, and twitter allows it to be embedded, then that is legit and there is no question.
>> "We strictly prohibit the sale of counterfeit products, and these games have been removed." That's all it would say on this.
What else did they need to say? Someone violated their policy and they bounced them.
Except, they didn't say that at all!
Right, but that wasn't even close to the question. It is mealy-mouthed bullshit that avoids the question.
Why would you respond to that observation by repeated the mealy-mouthed bullshit? You already know it doesn't have any value in the context you're posting it.
Ironically, the appeal might have saved the plaintiff a lot of money, and the plaintiff has the smaller pockets. But the judge looked at who was asking for it, and said no way too early.
They already got settlements from most of the original defendants, and they need new law to eventually win. The whole point of why they can get settlements is for the defendants to avoid the cost of trial, not because of the eventual outcome!
Any image creates is copyrighted on creation. Basic understanding of the subject fail.
By current law that is totally legal.
It is also well-litigated in the example of baseball games; you can absolutely watch from a crane or something next door if you can find a view.
Televising it wouldn't be allowed.
Mirrors don't "create" a "copy," and we can prove that by displaying the unaltered mirror in the courtroom to see if it contains the work, or not.
In the case of computers, ephemeral copies created inside of the computers memory for the purpose of displaying the image do not create a discrete copy; computers do not violate copyright by being built with cache, or by having separate main memory and video memory. A physical mirror is an even easier case.
would be if the congress would take the time to understand the issue and bass and amendment
Lots of people are going to agree that congress doesn't take the time to understand the issues, or the amendments.
But who in their right mind thinks congress doesn't understand bass?!? If you don't think they have time for fishing, you've never seen their schedule!
Yeah, some players dive or embellish. Who would have thought it possible? Some of them don't.
Your words don't make very much sense. Is that some sort of "Continental English?" Does your dialect even contain the concept of "identity?"
If you can't find at least three examples of it happening on the French team Sunday, you aren't watching.
Stop agreeing with the main thrust of my argument, it makes it harder for you to argue with me. You should be in agreement if you're in agreement.
Ping pong balls are a traditional object of make-work; in economics, everybody understands that if you have high unemployment and you pay workers to dig ditches, fill them with ping-pong balls, and then dig them back up, you stimulate the economy.
So in examples like this, it is very much like the food examples; they're just thinking about their paycheck and implying that you're not supposed to take their presentation seriously as if it was actual work, because it wasn't; it was make-work.
I scanned your answer very heavily in attempting to detect if you provided an answer to my question, or not. And it appears to be "or not."
You posted a misleading comment; I asked a simple question for narrow clarity on a very specific aspect of it; you responded with a bunch of mealy-mouthed bullshit that avoids the question.
Clearly, the answer is that it was not all true as stated, but is one of those infamous "versions of the truth" instead. Truth doesn't have versions, though. There is either a lie, or an error, and you deny that there is any error. I'll leave it at that.
That's like claiming that if a lack of consequences would increase the rate of theft, you've proven theft is good because people prefer to do it. It is complete horseshit. Individual preference tells you nothing about if an outcome is desirable, and it doesn't even try to address the topic of desirability.
Do you also think that drug addicts prefer to be drug addicts, because they've demonstrated a pattern of behavior? Are all patterns of behavior inherently desirable? Is that truly a natural characteristic of behavior patterns?
Cancellations happen due to short term unpredictable things.
For long term predictable factors there's no need to cancel, because you wouldn't (and couldn't) schedule it in the first place.
You might have an unrealistic concept of what "scheduling" means. What if it turns out that the typical case is not something you believe will happen for sure, but just an aspirational goal? (spoiler: this is the case)
That something is scheduled tells you, literally, that it has been written down on a piece of paper called a "schedule." No more, no less.
You've quite obviously never used the SysV answer to IPC. Don't be a dunce, look this shit up before posting since you don't work with IPC technologies. (d-bus is the modern IPC mechanism)
You don't get to have d-bus be some kind of criminal, it is in fact a required part of a modern *nix system, because IPC is a thing. And no, nobody is even willing to attempt use of semaphores anymore.
If they were willing to show up sober and on time every morning, they could already be doing work.
Wait, you thought those shitty artists are getting paid?!?!? LMFAO
If you take away the photograph that they're supposed to mimic, then the chimp wins every time.
That's not hard to build.
I'm willing to build you a custom one for cost + 20%.
Please be advised that the price is directly related to the area about which the drink holder can hover; the cheapest option hovers in a fixed position over a pedestal, and only costs 4 figures.
I can splatter some paint on it for free in an artistic way, but don't expect a Jackson Pollock.
It may turn out that even though they're only getting paid for that many hours, the actual time commitment is much higher.
Other part time jobs only use up part of your time; this is a part time job that uses up all your time.
It isn't like you can work a typical second part time job from a random airport hotel. All that time is taken up by the job.
Your math might be suspect; a war would cause a lot of pilots to be recalled, even ones whose service would otherwise have already been finished for years.
Training increases related to a war would likely focus on unmanned aircraft.
As a result, lots more people are able to fly to travel. (P.S. This is a good thing)
Why is that good? I say it is bad. How do you know which is correct?
My advice, look up the word "shortage." You're only arguing there is no shortage.
Is that all true as stated, or is the "$70-80 an hour" back-calculated by taking the annual salary and dividing what it would be for a 40 hour week? Because by your numbers, pilots with seniority make less than the starting wage.
Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.
I know, that's crazy talk.
That's almost the sort of talk you'd expect if there was a pilot shortage, but it is so far from reality that there obviously isn't a shortage, just a bunch of whiny companies.
If there was a shortage, they'd be offering free training and guaranteed work schedules.
Wow, that's impressive, business.com must be worth a fortune!