Humming a tune on a YouTube video is a "copyright violation", as is sharing of recorded music, Movies etc. The all encompassing IP laws protecting such content are regularly scoffed at by internet users worldwide.
As for "Derivative Use", I would guess that there are already some attorneys (charging by the hour) to hammer out whether or not the IP holders have a claim and whether or not such a claim depends on abstraction/subtraction of the work and if the screenshots are even "protected content" to begin with. But I don't want to get into the minutia of IP law here as IANAL and I have been trying to make a different point. (However poorly)
What is relevant to me in this case is that this developer is evidently blatantly scoffing at copyright, IP, Plagiarism, etc. and expects to suffer minimal to no harm because of it. Just like so many others, (including multinational corporations) who incorporate others IP into their products and never pay a dime of licensing, or assign any credit for the work whatsoever . . . until they get caught, and even then they fight it tooth and nail. (Sony's - BluRay Laser tech springs to mind)
If it's ok for the big guys to scoff at these laws when it suits them, why is it not ok for the smaller player to simply ignore IP or just plagiarize others work just as blatantly? There is little or no risk of any real harm coming to them, and then only if they get caught. Even if they are brought to court, and have to pay the licensing or a punitive damage amount, as long as the books are in the black it's still all good.
At some point IP law (and its requisite minutia) becomes entirely irrelevant in the real world. I think we are quickly reaching that point, and thus I really don't see the harm in this any more than I see the harm in Humming a tune on a YouTube video, a programmer borrowing a script or code snippet and using it in his work, a college student sharing mp3s, or a commenter who cuts and pastes text from a website into his comment.
Whether this is good or bad for society in the long run remains to be seen.
In my mind the biggest problem with nuclear power isn't nuclear plant safety, so much as it is the risk of weaponization of the fuel.
I actually think Geothermal will be the only dependable energy source over the long haul, but we need to work out a few bugs first.
Electric powered cars will lower oil dependence for a bit, but since so many other products are made from oil it will continue to be an important resource regardless of whether people burn it or not.
In fact we depend on plastics so much now, that in my mind burning it as fuel makes as much sense as burning the food supply for fuel.
"I'm pretty sure I can't pick up any GPL project, stick a pretty UI on the front, call it my work entirely an sell it as a packaged, standalone product."
I beg to differ. If that were true there would be no need for sites like gpl-violations.org.
You "Shouldn't" but you certainly "Can" and if your team of attorneys is big enough, you will get away with it.
I agree that the developer here was leaning more to the "black hat" side of this grey area, and should have credited the screenshots, but derivative works require some source of derivation do they not?
Maybe calling this "Fair Use" is stretching usage rights and derivative work a bit, but the same can be said of calling this "plagiarism" as it also stretches the point just a bit beyond credulity. (especially if all we are talking about are screenshots)
Royalties, licensing fees and corporate secrecy make creating derivative works too expensive for many artists.
The notion of intellectual property now extends well beyond its historical origins and the laws governing IP are being wielded like a sledgehammer. The more draconian the IP law and the more random the enforcement of that law, the more you will see scofflaws who just don't care about IP one way or another.
I agree that a derivative work should always credit its source material. I think current IP law is entirely lopsided, and classifying this as "IP Infringement" seems to be more of the same overkill on the part of Copyright holders.
IIRC Most Mix CDs are "pirate" copies, and the studios historically looked the other way because the mixes have decent marketing value (i.e. free advertising). It's only in the last few years that I can remember studios taking action against DJs selling music mix CDs. I know quite a few DJs and don't remember any of them paying anyone for licensing. When DJs perform live the club owner is obligated to pay the performance fees.
Would proper accreditation of the sources have made this games borrowed material and assets OK?
...it is sampling, just like in the music industry. I would have to second this opinion. Given that the Backgrounds are evidentally static screenies, then I don't see a lot of difference between this, music mix CDs and/or video mashup.
Heck, I use the background images from Bejeweled as wallpaper. Does that make me an IP infringer? If I give the wallpaper to the guy in the next office am I then a pirate?
This is simple Fair use IMHO, although they should give credit to the sources.
"clearly visible ill effects of marijuana that affect you"
Care to provide a citation for your drivel?
Oh! That's right you can't possibly offer any proof! Why? Because your post was nothing but complete and utter horse hockey.
There are no medical studies about marijuana one way or the other, because it's against the LAW to study the substance and/or its effects to begin with.
So, you're both a fool and a liar, and that usually means that you are either in law enforcement or politics.
So it is now trolling to point out that someone is paint a deliberately false picture? Since I debunked your claim using your own quoted text, and yet you continued on with the sole intention of baiting myself or other users into an emotional response, and since you initially disrupted normal on-topic discussion with a spurious claim of "Quote Mining"...
What about little things like ethics, morals, and personal integrity? What about paying for it because they created the game and are trying to make a living selling it? I used to download software, but have since stopped because it bothered my conscience. Heck, I even bought a legal copy of WinXP.
It's all well and good to hate the music industry megacorps, but that doesn't give you the right to blithely violate their copyright.
Are you asking about MY ethics, morals, and personal integrity or the *IAA's? I already said that I DO in fact pay for games, and my OS is open source, I own several copies of various flavors of Widows given to me over the years at tech events, so they're legal too. What exactly is your point?
The "Quote mining" term is usually used as a pejorative. So are you accusing me of misquotation? Of an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately? Of taking the quote out of context?
The summary says, "the need for a centralized IT department will go away. Firms will no longer need to own/maintain the boxes that they use to run their firm's apps. With no need to touch a box, there will be no need to have the IT staff co-located with the boxes."
This is similar to what Manos described in April of this year. Except Manos added the "truckers and longshoremen" pejorative to his vision of the future of IT staffing.
Since I Blogged, and/. Journaled about it in April, I thought it was interesting to see the same idea on the "roadmap" described in the summary. That's hardly "Quote mining".
I'm not sure that this is a completely pointless comparison.
The funny thing about online music downloads (and the MAFIAA) is that I'm more than willing to pay for all of my media just as I pay for all of my games, (which I can also usually download just as easily for free). The reason I pay for games is because the publishers add value like game servers, ranking and records, updates, and free stuff like wallpaper and screensavers.
I want to buy music, I want to buy video content, I WANT to support my favorite artists. But right now there is no added value for me if I pay, and currently I actually lose value by paying because the only time I am restricted in my paid media's usage is when I hit a DRM wall.
No one in the music and movie industries seems to want my money badly enough to actually work for it. And after the last several years of arrogance, lawsuits and being referred to as a "Revenue Stream" rather than as a "Customer", work is what it will take from the music and video industry for me to actually pay for music and video content.
In an article describing Microsoft's mainstream containerized data centers (named "C-Blox") Microsoft general manager of data center services Michael Manos says his vision of the future of IT is IT workers who look more like "truckers and longshoremen than traditional IT workers".
So are we now to believe that a "truckers and longshoremen" skills shortage shows need for an increase of the 85,000 H-1B visas already available?
I didn't realize that Hollywood had vested interests in...
Internet Protocol
International Paper (hmmm. down -26 today, maybe I'll buy a few shares).
Interesting People
Oh Wait! TFA is talking about Intellectual Property! Which in this thread refers to creations of the mind.
IP can be inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
Intellectual property is divided into two categories:
Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source;
and
Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs.
Great, another Unfunded Mandate, but instead of bankrupting your friendly state or local governments with no funding to pay for the requirement, they are going to start hitting the citizenry directly.
ISPs will simply pass the cost of maintaining and storing all of that data right to their customers. Never mind the privacy implications.
What Political philosophy attacks perceived weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism, promises vigorous foreign aid as well as aggressive military programs, and undertakes federal control of private business and economy to reduce "social friction"?
I won't supply an answer because I'm already flirting with Godwins Law.
You have it exactly right. We are paying for law enforcement, (taxes) with no guarantee that laws will actually be enforced.
And this is such a good idea that we should expand it (and the requisite tax burden) to the entire internet.
So then anti-distributed DoS products and services are the protection racket?
I don't think "Protection Racket" means what you think it means.
A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a powerful entity or individual coerces other less powerful entities or individuals to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase "protection" services against various external threats.
DDoS is the "external threat". But let's go ahead and talk about "There ought to be a law" in regards to DDoS.
Who will follow those laws? That's easy, it will be the people who follow laws to begin with.
Let's start with that part; no matter if a DDoS victim chooses to pay, the victim will likely be required to report the attack to law enforcement under penalty of "the law". If the victim were not to report the "crime", (and/or pays up) should the victim then face civil and criminal penalties for not reporting it?
Because, as long as people pay, the extortionists will continue to attack.
"The Bashaw, ruler of a semi-autonomous Ottoman province, was the leader of the loose confederation that became known as the Barbary States, and he ran an 18th-century version of what we today would call a protection racket."
So is it the anti malware vendors running the 21st century version of a protection racket?
Apparently so from TFA,... either that, or it's just more FUD to encourage government control (read taxation) of the internet.
Biden pushed for passage of a bill known as the Combating Child Exploitation Act. It would authorize more than $1 billion over the next eight years to hire 250 new federal agents devoted to Internet crimes against children...
One billion dollars! (puts pinky to lower lip) I see the tip of an ice berg, but ok since... "It's for the children"!
provide additional funding to regional computer forensics labs, and give out more federal grants to the regional Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task forces. The House of Representatives passed a companion bill in October.
Ah! The rest of the iceberg! Now how will wepay for it?
No matter that it cannot possibly work, it is for the children you see. So naturally if it's not working, we'll simply need to provide a bit more funding in this year's budget, and the next, and the next...
We can include a theorized Correlation between Compact Radio Quasars and Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays. When the Quasi Quasars radio source ignites, it sends a blast wave out that clears out a lot of the gas (which contains heavy elements) out to the rim (our way). And the Ultra High Energy reaction creates a lot of iridium in the process.
I was thinking about the cause of the Galactic warming myself. Wormhole energy taps by the Nano People perhaps? We can likely work that into chapter two.
Slashdot Mirror
As for "Derivative Use", I would guess that there are already some attorneys (charging by the hour) to hammer out whether or not the IP holders have a claim and whether or not such a claim depends on abstraction/subtraction of the work and if the screenshots are even "protected content" to begin with. But I don't want to get into the minutia of IP law here as IANAL and I have been trying to make a different point. (However poorly)
What is relevant to me in this case is that this developer is evidently blatantly scoffing at copyright, IP, Plagiarism, etc. and expects to suffer minimal to no harm because of it. Just like so many others, (including multinational corporations) who incorporate others IP into their products and never pay a dime of licensing, or assign any credit for the work whatsoever . . . until they get caught, and even then they fight it tooth and nail. (Sony's - BluRay Laser tech springs to mind)
If it's ok for the big guys to scoff at these laws when it suits them, why is it not ok for the smaller player to simply ignore IP or just plagiarize others work just as blatantly? There is little or no risk of any real harm coming to them, and then only if they get caught. Even if they are brought to court, and have to pay the licensing or a punitive damage amount, as long as the books are in the black it's still all good.
At some point IP law (and its requisite minutia) becomes entirely irrelevant in the real world. I think we are quickly reaching that point, and thus I really don't see the harm in this any more than I see the harm in Humming a tune on a YouTube video, a programmer borrowing a script or code snippet and using it in his work, a college student sharing mp3s, or a commenter who cuts and pastes text from a website into his comment.
Whether this is good or bad for society in the long run remains to be seen.
I actually think Geothermal will be the only dependable energy source over the long haul, but we need to work out a few bugs first.
Electric powered cars will lower oil dependence for a bit, but since so many other products are made from oil it will continue to be an important resource regardless of whether people burn it or not.
In fact we depend on plastics so much now, that in my mind burning it as fuel makes as much sense as burning the food supply for fuel.
I beg to differ. If that were true there would be no need for sites like gpl-violations.org.
You "Shouldn't" but you certainly "Can" and if your team of attorneys is big enough, you will get away with it.
Julie Amero and the Porn Pop-Ups all over again?
Yes I do. As long as you credit the author and freely share the source code. Does GPLv3 ring any bells?
Maybe calling this "Fair Use" is stretching usage rights and derivative work a bit, but the same can be said of calling this "plagiarism" as it also stretches the point just a bit beyond credulity. (especially if all we are talking about are screenshots)
Royalties, licensing fees and corporate secrecy make creating derivative works too expensive for many artists.
The notion of intellectual property now extends well beyond its historical origins and the laws governing IP are being wielded like a sledgehammer. The more draconian the IP law and the more random the enforcement of that law, the more you will see scofflaws who just don't care about IP one way or another.
IIRC Most Mix CDs are "pirate" copies, and the studios historically looked the other way because the mixes have decent marketing value (i.e. free advertising). It's only in the last few years that I can remember studios taking action against DJs selling music mix CDs. I know quite a few DJs and don't remember any of them paying anyone for licensing. When DJs perform live the club owner is obligated to pay the performance fees.
Would proper accreditation of the sources have made this games borrowed material and assets OK?
...it is sampling, just like in the music industry. I would have to second this opinion. Given that the Backgrounds are evidentally static screenies, then I don't see a lot of difference between this, music mix CDs and/or video mashup.Heck, I use the background images from Bejeweled as wallpaper. Does that make me an IP infringer? If I give the wallpaper to the guy in the next office am I then a pirate?
This is simple Fair use IMHO, although they should give credit to the sources.
Care to provide a citation for your drivel?
Oh! That's right you can't possibly offer any proof! Why? Because your post was nothing but complete and utter horse hockey.
There are no medical studies about marijuana one way or the other, because it's against the LAW to study the substance and/or its effects to begin with.
So, you're both a fool and a liar, and that usually means that you are either in law enforcement or politics.
For the same reason that Ebay acts like a fencing operation for stolen goods, but is never charged as such.
Why yes! It is trolling.
If so, then "Trolling" should be a sufficient description of your comment.
It's all well and good to hate the music industry megacorps, but that doesn't give you the right to blithely violate their copyright.
Are you asking about MY ethics, morals, and personal integrity or the *IAA's? I already said that I DO in fact pay for games, and my OS is open source, I own several copies of various flavors of Widows given to me over the years at tech events, so they're legal too. What exactly is your point?
That's where the "Work" part comes in. It's their job to figure out a way for their obsolete business to become relevant and start making money again.
By alienating their customer base with lawsuits and draconian DRM they have made their "work" that much more difficult.
The summary says, "the need for a centralized IT department will go away. Firms will no longer need to own/maintain the boxes that they use to run their firm's apps. With no need to touch a box, there will be no need to have the IT staff co-located with the boxes."
This is similar to what Manos described in April of this year. Except Manos added the "truckers and longshoremen" pejorative to his vision of the future of IT staffing.
Since I Blogged, and /. Journaled about it in April, I thought it was interesting to see the same idea on the "roadmap" described in the summary. That's hardly "Quote mining".
The funny thing about online music downloads (and the MAFIAA) is that I'm more than willing to pay for all of my media just as I pay for all of my games, (which I can also usually download just as easily for free). The reason I pay for games is because the publishers add value like game servers, ranking and records, updates, and free stuff like wallpaper and screensavers.
I want to buy music, I want to buy video content, I WANT to support my favorite artists. But right now there is no added value for me if I pay, and currently I actually lose value by paying because the only time I am restricted in my paid media's usage is when I hit a DRM wall.
No one in the music and movie industries seems to want my money badly enough to actually work for it. And after the last several years of arrogance, lawsuits and being referred to as a "Revenue Stream" rather than as a "Customer", work is what it will take from the music and video industry for me to actually pay for music and video content.
So are we now to believe that a "truckers and longshoremen" skills shortage shows need for an increase of the 85,000 H-1B visas already available?
Internet Protocol
International Paper (hmmm. down -26 today, maybe I'll buy a few shares).
Interesting People
Oh Wait! TFA is talking about Intellectual Property! Which in this thread refers to creations of the mind.
IP can be inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
Intellectual property is divided into two categories:
Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source;
and
Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs.
Or we're you just being deliberately obtuse?
ISPs will simply pass the cost of maintaining and storing all of that data right to their customers. Never mind the privacy implications.
What Political philosophy attacks perceived weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism, promises vigorous foreign aid as well as aggressive military programs, and undertakes federal control of private business and economy to reduce "social friction"?
I won't supply an answer because I'm already flirting with Godwins Law.
You have it exactly right. We are paying for law enforcement, (taxes) with no guarantee that laws will actually be enforced. And this is such a good idea that we should expand it (and the requisite tax burden) to the entire internet.
I don't think "Protection Racket" means what you think it means.
DDoS is the "external threat". But let's go ahead and talk about "There ought to be a law" in regards to DDoS.
Who will follow those laws? That's easy, it will be the people who follow laws to begin with.
Let's start with that part; no matter if a DDoS victim chooses to pay, the victim will likely be required to report the attack to law enforcement under penalty of "the law". If the victim were not to report the "crime", (and/or pays up) should the victim then face civil and criminal penalties for not reporting it?
Because, as long as people pay, the extortionists will continue to attack.
Apparently so from TFA, ... either that, or it's just more FUD to encourage government control (read taxation) of the internet.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are." Zen saying
One billion dollars! (puts pinky to lower lip) I see the tip of an ice berg, but ok since ... "It's for the children"!
Ah! The rest of the iceberg! Now how will we pay for it?
No matter that it cannot possibly work, it is for the children you see. So naturally if it's not working, we'll simply need to provide a bit more funding in this year's budget, and the next, and the next...
We can include a theorized Correlation between Compact Radio Quasars and Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays. When the Quasi Quasars radio source ignites, it sends a blast wave out that clears out a lot of the gas (which contains heavy elements) out to the rim (our way). And the Ultra High Energy reaction creates a lot of iridium in the process. I was thinking about the cause of the Galactic warming myself. Wormhole energy taps by the Nano People perhaps? We can likely work that into chapter two.