That's nice in theory, but many parents think they know a lot more about a subject than they really do. It doesn't do anybody any good when they try to teach their kids something that they don't really understand either. I've seen quite a few examples where a home schooled child had an idiot for a teacher.
Yeah, how dare Google hide the rules so that they can't "game" the system. I'm surprised the newspapers could even complain about it with a straight face.
(1) If you are receiving content directly from a third party and are not distributing, then how are they even going to know you're doing it? (2) If you are not distributing then you are not breaking copyright law.
The fear campaign has convinced people that THEY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, and that DOWNLOADING IS ILLEGAL. Neither is true.
Apparently their misinformation campaign is working just as well as their fear campaign. You do realize that nobody has settled or gone to court because of downloading, right?
It doesn't have to be certain either way. However, a potential bias like that is supposed to qualify as a conflict of interest, at least that's how it works in my country. Apparently not in Sweden.
Yes, but in 1970, whether or not the work was covered had nothing to do with whether or not the author was still alive. Copyright terms then were not based on the life of the author. That didn't happen until later.
Copyright infringement has nothing to do with possession of stolen property, they are completely unrelated things. There is no such thing as "possessing stolen IP" with regards to copyright infringed material.
The buyer did nothing illegal, and legally owns the material that they bought. Only the seller/distributor is guilty of copyright infringement.
Conversely, when you buy an eBook from Amazon, or a DRMed song from iTunes, you are purchasing a licence to use the content, not the content itself.
That is false. Amazon is presenting the transaction as a sale, not a license. Courts have already ruled on similar cases. When you buy an eBook from Amazon, you own that copy the same way you own a read book from the bookstore. The whole "is it a license or a sale" question has already been answered by the court system.
No. Continuing infringement would have been if Amazon continued to sell the eBook to other customers. They were already liable for the existing copies that were sold/distributed. Deleting those copies did not remove their liability. That infringement already occurred.
They don't need it anymore. Whatever they have earned before they died is inherited by their heirs. Isn't that how the rest of the world works?
I don't agree that copyrights should expire upon death (they shouldn't be tied to the author's life at all), but it has nothing to do with providing for their widow/children. An author can do that the same way that every other person earning a living does.
Author's life plus 15 years to take care of any family left behind in the event of the author's death was the original duration of US copyright.
No, that's not what the original duration was. It was originally 14 years with an option for a one time extension of another 14 years. That means copyrights would originally last a max of 28 years, even if the author was still living. The whole notion of "life + something" didn't exist in the US until 1976.
So they open a savings account like everyone else. They earn a living while the works are still under copyright, and then pass that income on to their heirs. "Providing for one's widow and/or children" shouldn't include inheriting monopoly control if that limited monopoly would have otherwise expired.
Personally, I don't think copyright terms should have anything to do with the life of an author. They should be a set duration, regardless of whether or not the author is still alive (like they were originally).
Unless the download is considered to be indirect infringement, such that your actions caused the distributor to infringe the copyright.
In this example, since Microsoft is an authorized distributor of their own content, then you can download all the Microsoft content you want from them. There is no copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically, it's Vista SP3.
That's nice in theory, but many parents think they know a lot more about a subject than they really do. It doesn't do anybody any good when they try to teach their kids something that they don't really understand either. I've seen quite a few examples where a home schooled child had an idiot for a teacher.
To be honest I just don't bother now, I have plenty of things to do that don't involve sitting watching a box.
Like going online and sitting watching a monitor.
Yeah, how dare Google hide the rules so that they can't "game" the system. I'm surprised the newspapers could even complain about it with a straight face.
Because following due process requires money.
Not to mention evidence. It's more difficult to conduct a reign of terror if you actually have to start proving things.
Because the music and movie industry lines their pocket with more cash than the people do.
So when or why he suddenly became so bitter about the whole thing is unclear
Probably when they cut his part.
(1) If you are receiving content directly from a third party and are not distributing, then how are they even going to know you're doing it?
(2) If you are not distributing then you are not breaking copyright law.
The fear campaign has convinced people that THEY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, and that DOWNLOADING IS ILLEGAL. Neither is true.
Regardless of the fact that they have not gone after anyone for downloading yet, they still have the ability.
That's part of the fear campaign too. They want you to think they have that ability.
Apparently their misinformation campaign is working just as well as their fear campaign. You do realize that nobody has settled or gone to court because of downloading, right?
It doesn't have to be certain either way. However, a potential bias like that is supposed to qualify as a conflict of interest, at least that's how it works in my country. Apparently not in Sweden.
The problem is, it's the monkeys in the middle who are pushing through the new laws.
Yes, but in 1970, whether or not the work was covered had nothing to do with whether or not the author was still alive. Copyright terms then were not based on the life of the author. That didn't happen until later.
Copyright infringement has nothing to do with possession of stolen property, they are completely unrelated things. There is no such thing as "possessing stolen IP" with regards to copyright infringed material.
The buyer did nothing illegal, and legally owns the material that they bought. Only the seller/distributor is guilty of copyright infringement.
Conversely, when you buy an eBook from Amazon, or a DRMed song from iTunes, you are purchasing a licence to use the content, not the content itself.
That is false. Amazon is presenting the transaction as a sale, not a license. Courts have already ruled on similar cases. When you buy an eBook from Amazon, you own that copy the same way you own a read book from the bookstore. The whole "is it a license or a sale" question has already been answered by the court system.
No. Continuing infringement would have been if Amazon continued to sell the eBook to other customers. They were already liable for the existing copies that were sold/distributed. Deleting those copies did not remove their liability. That infringement already occurred.
Copyright infringement has nothing to do with possession of stolen property.
We don't censor free speech.
You must be new here.
There's a big difference between a pension or life insurance vs extending monopoly control just to provide for their heirs.
They don't need it anymore. Whatever they have earned before they died is inherited by their heirs. Isn't that how the rest of the world works?
I don't agree that copyrights should expire upon death (they shouldn't be tied to the author's life at all), but it has nothing to do with providing for their widow/children. An author can do that the same way that every other person earning a living does.
But the Hobbit would have been in the public domain as of 1993.
Author's life plus 15 years to take care of any family left behind in the event of the author's death was the original duration of US copyright.
No, that's not what the original duration was. It was originally 14 years with an option for a one time extension of another 14 years. That means copyrights would originally last a max of 28 years, even if the author was still living. The whole notion of "life + something" didn't exist in the US until 1976.
So they open a savings account like everyone else. They earn a living while the works are still under copyright, and then pass that income on to their heirs. "Providing for one's widow and/or children" shouldn't include inheriting monopoly control if that limited monopoly would have otherwise expired.
Personally, I don't think copyright terms should have anything to do with the life of an author. They should be a set duration, regardless of whether or not the author is still alive (like they were originally).
What makes you think that copyright law in 1970 had anything to do with whether or not the author was still alive?
Unless the download is considered to be indirect infringement, such that your actions caused the distributor to infringe the copyright.
In this example, since Microsoft is an authorized distributor of their own content, then you can download all the Microsoft content you want from them. There is no copyright infringement.