illegal copies of games (or electronic media in general) is fought in the wrong way by the copyright owners and distributors:
instead of making life much harsher for those who legally obtain them (loan from a friend or the local library, purchase and return from different stores in rotation, finding abandoned copies on the underground,...) they should simply lower the price to an acceptable level.
I know that what I'm going to say "targets" a different "market" but when a single console game costs as much as a family dinner out or a family night out at the cinema, please keep don't buying them, so the industry will feel even more hurt by this digital piracy and put more DRM and bullprice into it.
seriously kids, when was the last time that you read a (non-school) book ?
I'll remind you of that next time you try to thaw a cube of monsanto ice...
(kind of joking here, but there are countries who allow format-shifting, you know...)
You are missing the point, it being the fact that the original items we are discussing here are not copyrighted anymore, which is not the case in your example, where the pictures that someone has put on the Web would be free to copy after 75 years (depending on the country) - provided they are the originals.
This specific Library says in the legal disclaimer to contact the "partners" as they are the owner of the digitised images, while the Library itself simply has ownership of the physical book, not its content.
In my opinion it's just another way of squeezing more money out:
1) Lock the original artwork under big chains when its copyright is extinct
2) Make a digitised copy of whatever form - which falls under a new copyright term
3)...
4) Profit
My point is exactly that: if the museum can take a picture of it and have the copyright on the new digitised image as derivative work, why can't I too, if I have access to the original via the museum?
The museum surely doesn't hold the copyright to the original art, so why should I ask permission to photograph it?
Simply that the Library in Alexandria burned down at some point (as we all know that "civilisation" began in Mesopotamia) so the number in Middle East would be mch bigger.
I am surprised that there are 2 items for North America dating to pre-1500, and digging a little they are works describing Columbus discovery as-it-happens!
Funny thing is that there are a total of 4 items relating to the subject of Columbus and while two of them are "located" to the place of publication, those two are "located" to NA, but with the descriptive text indicating
It most likely was produced in Basel, Switzerland[...]
and
The first edition of the letter was printed in Spanish, in Barcelona, in April 1493. Within a month, Stephan Plannck published a Latin translation in Rome.
I wouldn't call myself a librarian if I did this kind of mistakes...
nope, they "clearly" indicate in their legal disclaimer that the items are copyrighted by "partners" and to direct queries to them, but don't even indicate who they are...
In any case:
- The website is publicly available, much like a museum
- I am browsing it from my private property and have a legally purchased camera with me
- Journalists can take pictures of anything they see, so why shouldn't I (not sure if a screenshot would pass the same test)
- [...takes pictures of computer monitor with pages of ancient book]
- There's nothing in the copyright laws that prevents this, or are you saying that the Library asked the original author for permission?
(Same goes for the publisher's copyright - extinct - and the owner of the physical copy cannot claim any copyright whatsoever on the content, otherwise heck I could claim royalties on Susan Boyle's performance because it's playing in my TV set...)
Think of it as going to Le Louvre for a picture of Tintoretto on display.
haven't you watched the movies?
it's done with a USB disk hidden in the secret screwcap at the bottom of the hot coffee...
I guess they forgot to notice that they weight more when they're full of bits
hey guys, reality check !
he didn't change the song title, he didn't attribute the song to himself...
what he could be forced to do is simply pay the royalty for a reproduction, much like bands do in your local pub/underground station... geez, get a life
last time I tried to report a real theft to the UK police, they told me "well, we can't be sure that it has been stolen until you are permanently deprived of the use" to which I replied "how long is permanent?" and they didn't know how to answer that...
hold-on ! are you saying that those websites shouting "free registration" don't really mean "legitimate access"?
it's like asking if you are connecting from a legitimate wireless point before you can search Google...
(and before you answer, some countries allow connecting from "open" access points)
here comes the argument that everyone wants to watch the Superbowl when it's broadcasted live instead of watching a repeat later...
the current generation-X is "novelty addicted" and just wants to try-out the shining-new stuff out there, but the interest quickly fades or transforms:
in this specific case, gamers simply didn't want to walk in the shop or go for the the demo (bear in mind that some forms of DRM are "preventing simultaneous release in other countries" or "preventing downloads based on random factors" - I would be interested to see what was the origin of those 100k illegitimate players), so they went for a quickly obtained copy before they simply throw it in the bin or purchase it for the medium-term
variable-size dots and lines can smooth anything unless seen by an electronic microscope... ink-jet printers have been using this technology for years and I'm sure you can't tell a gap there... blend in some colour and the job's done
...therefore we agree that infinite is just a convention and that the number of discrete atoms of ink on that sheet of paper is not the same (or that the number of sides in a polygon inside a circle can never match its curvature)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with bugi here, they learned those from the British slave trade and the American drug cartels...
nothing to see here, moving on...
illegal copies of games (or electronic media in general) is fought in the wrong way by the copyright owners and distributors: ...) they should simply lower the price to an acceptable level.
instead of making life much harsher for those who legally obtain them (loan from a friend or the local library, purchase and return from different stores in rotation, finding abandoned copies on the underground,
I know that what I'm going to say "targets" a different "market" but when a single console game costs as much as a family dinner out or a family night out at the cinema, please keep don't buying them, so the industry will feel even more hurt by this digital piracy and put more DRM and bullprice into it.
seriously kids, when was the last time that you read a (non-school) book ?
I'll remind you of that next time you try to thaw a cube of monsanto ice...
(kind of joking here, but there are countries who allow format-shifting, you know...)
you missed Middle East, EMEA and New Zealand (forgive me if they are not in alphabetical order)...
You are missing the point, it being the fact that the original items we are discussing here are not copyrighted anymore, which is not the case in your example, where the pictures that someone has put on the Web would be free to copy after 75 years (depending on the country) - provided they are the originals. ...
This specific Library says in the legal disclaimer to contact the "partners" as they are the owner of the digitised images, while the Library itself simply has ownership of the physical book, not its content.
In my opinion it's just another way of squeezing more money out:
1) Lock the original artwork under big chains when its copyright is extinct
2) Make a digitised copy of whatever form - which falls under a new copyright term
3)
4) Profit
My point is exactly that: if the museum can take a picture of it and have the copyright on the new digitised image as derivative work, why can't I too, if I have access to the original via the museum?
The museum surely doesn't hold the copyright to the original art, so why should I ask permission to photograph it?
I can clearly see then next step here: IVF babies anyone?
I am surprised that there are 2 items for North America dating to pre-1500, and digging a little they are works describing Columbus discovery as-it-happens!
Funny thing is that there are a total of 4 items relating to the subject of Columbus and while two of them are "located" to the place of publication, those two are "located" to NA, but with the descriptive text indicating
It most likely was produced in Basel, Switzerland[...]
and
The first edition of the letter was printed in Spanish, in Barcelona, in April 1493. Within a month, Stephan Plannck published a Latin translation in Rome.
I wouldn't call myself a librarian if I did this kind of mistakes...
nope, they "clearly" indicate in their legal disclaimer that the items are copyrighted by "partners" and to direct queries to them, but don't even indicate who they are...
In any case:
- The website is publicly available, much like a museum
- I am browsing it from my private property and have a legally purchased camera with me
- Journalists can take pictures of anything they see, so why shouldn't I (not sure if a screenshot would pass the same test)
- [...takes pictures of computer monitor with pages of ancient book]
- There's nothing in the copyright laws that prevents this, or are you saying that the Library asked the original author for permission?
(Same goes for the publisher's copyright - extinct - and the owner of the physical copy cannot claim any copyright whatsoever on the content, otherwise heck I could claim royalties on Susan Boyle's performance because it's playing in my TV set...)
Think of it as going to Le Louvre for a picture of Tintoretto on display.
honey, I forgot to duck!
haven't you watched the movies?
it's done with a USB disk hidden in the secret screwcap at the bottom of the hot coffee...
I guess they forgot to notice that they weight more when they're full of bits
does it mean that the FBI, NSA and Big Brother AT&T also have a copy of these thanks to wholesale wiretapping?
exactly, they're just shifting from Embrace to Extend, before the well-known end, only this time they're in for a real treat
-----
when is the last time that you didn't have to reboot your Windows computer?
hey guys, reality check !
he didn't change the song title, he didn't attribute the song to himself...
what he could be forced to do is simply pay the royalty for a reproduction, much like bands do in your local pub/underground station... geez, get a life
hold-on, so if I copyright my fart "noise", can I stop anyone else from farting the same peculiar notes?
how long is a composition?
as I wrote in my journal.
The "long arm" of the FBI ? How long ?
last time I tried to report a real theft to the UK police, they told me "well, we can't be sure that it has been stolen until you are permanently deprived of the use" to which I replied "how long is permanent?" and they didn't know how to answer that...
hold-on ! are you saying that those websites shouting "free registration" don't really mean "legitimate access"?
it's like asking if you are connecting from a legitimate wireless point before you can search Google...
(and before you answer, some countries allow connecting from "open" access points)
here comes the argument that everyone wants to watch the Superbowl when it's broadcasted live instead of watching a repeat later...
the current generation-X is "novelty addicted" and just wants to try-out the shining-new stuff out there, but the interest quickly fades or transforms:
in this specific case, gamers simply didn't want to walk in the shop or go for the the demo (bear in mind that some forms of DRM are "preventing simultaneous release in other countries" or "preventing downloads based on random factors" - I would be interested to see what was the origin of those 100k illegitimate players), so they went for a quickly obtained copy before they simply throw it in the bin or purchase it for the medium-term
variable-size dots and lines can smooth anything unless seen by an electronic microscope... ink-jet printers have been using this technology for years and I'm sure you can't tell a gap there... blend in some colour and the job's done
...therefore we agree that infinite is just a convention and that the number of discrete atoms of ink on that sheet of paper is not the same (or that the number of sides in a polygon inside a circle can never match its curvature)
can I instruct the robotic-arm to squirt ink in order to repel a fanatic and who does get sued in this case, the manufacturer or the writer ?
The real question is whether a expert assisting the jury can tell the difference.
And obviously someone that doesn't understand why people obtain signatures.
oh, does it mean that I cannot use the preface page with her signature as a personal cheque?