Why is this a problem?
If I am going to watch it in a week anyway on Free-to-Air TV and time-shift the commercials out, why is it wrong to download it a and watch it a week earlier?
Because the show isn't on Free-to-Air TV. You have to subscribe to HBO to get this show. It is wrong to download it a week earlier and watch it, because you didn't pay for it.
A work is copyrighted when it is created, whether it is published or not.
Of course in order to illegally copy a work, someone has to have access to the material. Otherwise, what are you copying?
But yes, the CR owner can say just that. In fact I have some documents, that may or may not exist. you can't leak them.
The catch with copyright, firstly you must make the claim that all documents exposed are true and factually.
I'm sorry, but what part of copyright claims that all documents must be true? I guess all those fictional books and movies can't be copyrighted.
You also don't have to claim damages. Just because your work isn't making money, doesn't mean it can't enjoy the protection of copyright.
Uhm, no...
The user pays to watch a program, or they are watching a you tube video. They do that today. Amazon doesn't need to pay anyone anything because I choose to watch something.
Amazon has a product similar to one seen in the movie. Amazon offers it to you for sale. They do that today. Amazon doesn't need to pay anyone to offer that item for you (it maybe that the model in the Ad was paid at sometime, but that is going to happen anyways)
The problem isn't the use of the phrase "drop table students" so much as programmers under pressure, or just being lazy, having to code for the use of characters like semi-colons, brackets, braces, pipes and all those other symbols that tend to cause problems if not correctly handled when returned in a variable.
Why is there a problem with them if they are returned in a variable (how else do you plan on returning them, smoke signals?)
When one person writes one piece, and another writes another piece, you have things like specifications to help you with the communication issue. It works in other areas of programming, why can't it work with verifying passwords? Better yet, instead of saying "Hmm I'll just strip these characters because I am a moron" why not write the code to handle ALL the characters. You know it is usually easier and simpler to do that anyways.
That is what kills me. It is actually easier to do the right thing, that it is to prevent you from not using certain characters because you don't like those characters.
These laws were ALL put in place to try to reduce the chances of someone either directly injuring themselves or others, or being too drunk to drive, getting behind the wheel and injuring themselves or an innocent bystander (thus infringing on their rights).
None of the laws you listed (other than those related to BAC) have to do with driving. The blue laws (Sunday and late night drinking) are because some people think you shouldn't drink. Has nothing to go with driving or hurting others. The age thing is similar...
Trademarks are not copyrighted they are trademarked. There is no time limit on trademarks.
There is a limit on trademarks. Trademarks are probably have the best IP rules today (although trademark clashes are interesting)
As long as you are using and defending your trademark you can keep it (unless it falls into general usage) Also a trademark is only good in the field you are in (well for the most part) On top of that I believe you also have to pay for your trademark on a regular basis.
Stop using the trademark, and you'll lose it.
While anyone could make a Harry Potter film, JK Rowling would still be able to sell the right to call just one of them the official one,
Yes, for the first 5 years. But after that there is nothing stopping me from creating the "Official Harry Potter" movie.
"Indefinitely" like we have now is too long, but 5 years is WAY to short. Even for patents.
For instance.musicians could actually make a living playing live and promoting themselves by givng away their music. Talented musicians who weren't writers would make money just playing anyones tunes. The shift towards rewarding talent rather than ownership would have the effect of allowing the cream to rise.
There is nothing to stop musicians from doing this today. Other than the fact that most musicians are not morons.
The problem with this, is the artist would play a gig. Someone would tape it and sell it. Making a bunch of money.
A much simpler first step would just to be to say that companies cannot own copyright only people. That copyright then expires on their death. Copyright is not transferable(although the royalties could be).
What problem does this solve?
Who owns the copyright on that latest 200 million dollar movie that had 3000 people work on it?
anyone with even average intelligence can easily figure out how to kill hundreds, if not thousands, at any...
Place...
No need to bring in Israeli's. No need to do anything more than anywhere else a lot of people gather. School, church, office building, mall, parks. Just as easy to target, no TSA there... Why do we need them at the airport?
I'm not exactly in favor for software patents. Partially because I think it is more like "here is a black box. I'm telling you this black box does X, so give me a patent on X"
But your example has nothing to do with software patents. It has to do with curing rubber. In this case the software is just a piece of the process, a tool. This is a lot different than, "patent a cursor by using EOR"
If they spent $100 million on something that can be duplicated by somebody for free by just observing it, then they are idiots and deserve to go out of business.
That is what patents are for. That "trade secret" law you talk about,are patents.
You have a choice, tell your secret and get exclusive use of your secret for a short time.
Or horde your secret indefinitely, hope no one else figures it out. Several companies have gone this route, successfully. But it is difficult to horde your secret if it is easy to figure it out from looking at it.
The problem with your approach is, sometimes figuring out how to get from A to B is difficult. But once you are there, the solution is obvious. If you did the hard work to get from A to B, you should be able to profit from it.
Software patents have two main problems.
The biggest problem is, generally they aren't novel enough. Too many can be conceived by a general practioner of the art. And claiming XYZ can now be done on the internet, or on an IPad, or on 'fancy new device' doesn't make it novel enough.
The other problem is ideas can't be patented. Yet that seems to be what most patents are. They won't show the code, so how do you know if you are infringing on the patent? There are multiple ways to solve a problem. Just because I got to the same end point doesn't mean I infringed on the patent.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you are saying is "It is too pricey for me, so I'll just take it without paying for it?"
Why is this a problem? If I am going to watch it in a week anyway on Free-to-Air TV and time-shift the commercials out, why is it wrong to download it a and watch it a week earlier?
Because the show isn't on Free-to-Air TV. You have to subscribe to HBO to get this show. It is wrong to download it a week earlier and watch it, because you didn't pay for it.
A work is copyrighted when it is created, whether it is published or not.
Of course in order to illegally copy a work, someone has to have access to the material. Otherwise, what are you copying?
But yes, the CR owner can say just that. In fact I have some documents, that may or may not exist. you can't leak them.
The catch with copyright, firstly you must make the claim that all documents exposed are true and factually.
I'm sorry, but what part of copyright claims that all documents must be true? I guess all those fictional books and movies can't be copyrighted.
You also don't have to claim damages. Just because your work isn't making money, doesn't mean it can't enjoy the protection of copyright.
Uhm, no... The user pays to watch a program, or they are watching a you tube video. They do that today. Amazon doesn't need to pay anyone anything because I choose to watch something.
Amazon has a product similar to one seen in the movie. Amazon offers it to you for sale. They do that today. Amazon doesn't need to pay anyone to offer that item for you (it maybe that the model in the Ad was paid at sometime, but that is going to happen anyways)
The problem isn't the use of the phrase "drop table students" so much as programmers under pressure, or just being lazy, having to code for the use of characters like semi-colons, brackets, braces, pipes and all those other symbols that tend to cause problems if not correctly handled when returned in a variable.
Why is there a problem with them if they are returned in a variable (how else do you plan on returning them, smoke signals?)
When one person writes one piece, and another writes another piece, you have things like specifications to help you with the communication issue. It works in other areas of programming, why can't it work with verifying passwords? Better yet, instead of saying "Hmm I'll just strip these characters because I am a moron" why not write the code to handle ALL the characters. You know it is usually easier and simpler to do that anyways.
That is what kills me. It is actually easier to do the right thing, that it is to prevent you from not using certain characters because you don't like those characters.
These laws were ALL put in place to try to reduce the chances of someone either directly injuring themselves or others, or being too drunk to drive, getting behind the wheel and injuring themselves or an innocent bystander (thus infringing on their rights).
None of the laws you listed (other than those related to BAC) have to do with driving. The blue laws (Sunday and late night drinking) are because some people think you shouldn't drink. Has nothing to go with driving or hurting others. The age thing is similar...
What comcast used to do, was give you one warning if you went over the limit. The second time you went over the limit, they cancelled your service.
Did HE inhale?
I think the time of the patent, software license, copyright, software NDA or other intellectual property should relate to it's "impact".
eg. Swipe to unlock. Length: About 10 secs. Hoverboard. Length: 10 years.
Who defines the impact?
Swipe to unlock is a dumb example as it isn't a novel enough concept to be given patent protection.
There should be a limit if the trademark is not actively in use.
They do. If you stop using a trademark, you'll lose it.
Trademarks are not copyrighted they are trademarked. There is no time limit on trademarks.
There is a limit on trademarks. Trademarks are probably have the best IP rules today (although trademark clashes are interesting)
As long as you are using and defending your trademark you can keep it (unless it falls into general usage) Also a trademark is only good in the field you are in (well for the most part) On top of that I believe you also have to pay for your trademark on a regular basis.
Stop using the trademark, and you'll lose it.
While anyone could make a Harry Potter film, JK Rowling would still be able to sell the right to call just one of them the official one,
Yes, for the first 5 years. But after that there is nothing stopping me from creating the "Official Harry Potter" movie. "Indefinitely" like we have now is too long, but 5 years is WAY to short. Even for patents.
Don't you think ...that protection has gone too far?
Nope. While I didn't read the books, I did enjoy the movies... Which wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that monopoly.
For instance.musicians could actually make a living playing live and promoting themselves by givng away their music. Talented musicians who weren't writers would make money just playing anyones tunes. The shift towards rewarding talent rather than ownership would have the effect of allowing the cream to rise.
There is nothing to stop musicians from doing this today. Other than the fact that most musicians are not morons.
The problem with this, is the artist would play a gig. Someone would tape it and sell it. Making a bunch of money.
Depends on the contract the author signed.
A much simpler first step would just to be to say that companies cannot own copyright only people. That copyright then expires on their death. Copyright is not transferable(although the royalties could be).
What problem does this solve? Who owns the copyright on that latest 200 million dollar movie that had 3000 people work on it?
Looks to me like TFA is arguing that Ballmer SHOULD be fired, not that he's the worst in history.
You may have a point considering the title of the article is
Oops! Five CEOs Who Should Have Already Been Fired
According to this: http://aciers.free.fr/index.php/2012/02/02/china-has-started-the-building-of-an-80000-ton-press-forge-us/ China's largest press is 40K. Although it does sound like America should investigate building an 81K press.
anyone with even average intelligence can easily figure out how to kill hundreds, if not thousands, at any...
Place...
No need to bring in Israeli's. No need to do anything more than anywhere else a lot of people gather. School, church, office building, mall, parks. Just as easy to target, no TSA there... Why do we need them at the airport?
I'm not exactly in favor for software patents. Partially because I think it is more like "here is a black box. I'm telling you this black box does X, so give me a patent on X"
But your example has nothing to do with software patents. It has to do with curing rubber. In this case the software is just a piece of the process, a tool. This is a lot different than, "patent a cursor by using EOR"
I am a software author and I want to have the same right to publish texts I write as other authors have.
You do have the same right. I'm not sure I understand your question.
If they spent $100 million on something that can be duplicated by somebody for free by just observing it, then they are idiots and deserve to go out of business.
That is what patents are for. That "trade secret" law you talk about,are patents.
You have a choice, tell your secret and get exclusive use of your secret for a short time.
Or horde your secret indefinitely, hope no one else figures it out. Several companies have gone this route, successfully. But it is difficult to horde your secret if it is easy to figure it out from looking at it.
The problem with your approach is, sometimes figuring out how to get from A to B is difficult. But once you are there, the solution is obvious. If you did the hard work to get from A to B, you should be able to profit from it.
Don't most people pay the phone carriers so they can access facebook? Text messaging is like $5 a month, data plans are like $50.
Software patents have two main problems.
The biggest problem is, generally they aren't novel enough. Too many can be conceived by a general practioner of the art. And claiming XYZ can now be done on the internet, or on an IPad, or on 'fancy new device' doesn't make it novel enough.
The other problem is ideas can't be patented. Yet that seems to be what most patents are. They won't show the code, so how do you know if you are infringing on the patent? There are multiple ways to solve a problem. Just because I got to the same end point doesn't mean I infringed on the patent.