Siegel died in 1996 and hadn't even worked on Superman comics since 1946. How exactly would his heirs be considered "talent"? There's no denying that the creation of the Superman character was a milestone in comics, but the majority of the value in the franchise was built by many talented people working for DC from 1946 to the present (not to mention fans), none of whom are even represented in this law suit between greedy corporations, greedy heirs and greedy lawyers.
allow the students to see the images -- though not to get copies of them
I was wondering what kind of magic DRM would allow that; then I realized they weren't doing it over the web but must bring them into a room and display them on a screen.
Blizzard has full rights to their own servers and can dictate how you connect and what you do. They also own anything that resides on their servers and can do whatever they want whenever they want.
While that's true, that would only give them the right to kick off people who are using the bot. It should not give them the right to sue the person who created the bot. It's the equivalent of arresting gun manufacturers for murders committed by others with their guns.
To be a little more charitable, what they're saying is "To make money from advertising, we would need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to get the maximum number of page views. Instead, we have quality niche content which some people will be willing to pay for." I don't know if it will work for them, but it might. Variety is to the entertainment industry what the Wall Street Journal is to the financial industry. Sure, the average reader won't pay for it, but they're not really the target market, and the people in that market have lots of extra money to spend on subscription fees.
You did miss something. Did you even read the blurb at the CollateralMurder site? I'll quote it for you since your obviously too lazy to click the link yourself:
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
No they didn't shoot the actual video, because they were DEAD!. Reuters was not successful in getting the video released via FOIA, but I'm sure it was their attempt that caused someone with a conscience at DOD to look at the video and leak it to Wikileaks. I'm not saying Wikileaks isn't providing a valuable service, but to try and say they are doing investigative reporting and Reuters isn't is highly disingenuous.
While I'm all in favor of citizen journalism, the tone of this article and most of the comments are very misdirected. Wikileaks did not have reporters in Iraq risking (and losing) their lives to gather the news. That was Reuters (you know, the traditional newspaper people who can't do anything). Without Reuters there wouldn't even be a story for Wikileaks to break. Show some respect.
He notes that the two reasons given by publishers and authors against Google Books (people can just read the books online instead of buy them, or they can print them out) are simply not true.
Even if it were true, what idiot would print out an ebook? That's like downloading an MP3 and copying it to cassette.
"If I contract someone to mow my lawn they may not be my employees but their work (the mowed lawn) belongs to me. "
The lawn already belonged to you before they mowed, of course it still belongs to you, besides, lawn mowing is not exactly a creative act. If you commission an artist to paint your portrait or a photographer to take you picture, you are paying for the physical artwork you receive, not the copyright on that piece of art.
"Yes, a commissioned work is a work for hire, claiming that they weren't employees is irrelevant."
It is VERY relevant. Copyright for a work automatically gets assigned to the artist except in a very few instances. One is where the artist specifically, contractually agrees to reassign copyright to another party. Another is when they perform creative work as part of their normal employment.
"Unless the contract specifically sates that the work belongs to the artist, the work should automatically belong to the person who bought it. Just like if I buy a product from a store it can reasonably be assumed it belongs to me."
Wrong, the artist is always the default copyright holder unless the contract specifically states otherwise. Owning a physical object is not the same thing as controlling the copyright on that object. Whether it is a unique, one-of-a-kind item like a painting or a mass-produced item like a DVD makes no difference. Even when the artist no longer possesses the original, they are usually still the copyright holder.
"More examples of how broken our IP system This law was intended not to benefit the public but to benefit special interest groups which should reasonably raise questions as to the intended purpose of other aspects of our broken laws."
Don't blame me, I'm not saying that's how the law should be; I'm telling you how the law currently is.
Consumer Reports is a bit of a special case. To ensure the impartiality of their reviews they don't accept advertising in either their magazine or their web site. I subscribed for a couple years when I was first married and making a lot of big purchases (major appliances and such) and it was worth the money. There are lots of free review sites like ePinions, but they can be gamed by astroturfing manufacturers and retailers, and even legitimate user reviews are often useless ("I'm too stupid to read the manual, therefore there must be a problem with the product."). With CR, you're not really paying for content so much as you are paying for trusted, unbiased expertise.
As the USPS website notes, it owns over 1,000 murals that were all commissioned by the Treasury Department between the years of 1934 and 1943. You would think, therefore, they should be in the public domain.
Why would you assume that? The Post Office may own the physical murals but they probably don't hold the copyright on them. A commissioned artwork is generally not a work-for-hire situation (i.e. the artists were not employees of the USPS) and unless the USPS specifically stated in the contract that the copyright would be assigned to them, the artists would be the copyright holders. While a work produced by the US government is immediately in the public domain, that's probably not the case here. A painting from 1934 would not enter the public domain until 2029.
Actually, the senators proposing this bill are Republicans. Republicans are supportive of government regulations and interference if it's in the name of security. They only get upset if the government is actually trying to help people.
And, because of that, we tend to trust people passing links to others much more than people just promoting their own stuff.
There's a dark side to that also. People trust rumors/urban legends passed to them by people they know, but ignore the experts because they are strangers to them.
On the post: Warner Bros. So Distraught Over Losing Superman Rights, It Personally Sues The Lawyer Who Won
Re: Re: Question
On the post: Judge Orders School To Alert Students, Parents To Webcam Photos Taken
super DRM?
I was wondering what kind of magic DRM would allow that; then I realized they weren't doing it over the web but must bring them into a room and display them on a screen.
On the post: Subway Claims Trademark On 'Footlong' Threatens Hotdog Seller Who's Been Selling Footlongs For Decades
Re: What a joke...
On the post: Net Neutrality Battle Gets Silly... Astroturfers, Sock Puppets, Student Projects, Overwritten Word Docs... Oh My
Who do you trust least?
On the post: Do We Really Want To Criminalize Bad Jokes?
With apologies to Voltaire
On the post: Trio Of Important First Sale Cases All Hit Appeals Court In Early June
Re: 3rd not the same
While that's true, that would only give them the right to kick off people who are using the bot. It should not give them the right to sue the person who created the bot. It's the equivalent of arresting gun manufacturers for murders committed by others with their guns.
On the post: Daily Variety: We're Putting In A Paywall So We Don't Have To Write About Gossip
Re: Re:
On the post: Japanese Video Game Guru Says Console Days Are Numbered
Re: Hmm
On the post: But How Could Wikileaks Break A Story Without Traditional Newspaper Backing?
Re: Re: Whose reporters died in the video????
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
No they didn't shoot the actual video, because they were DEAD!. Reuters was not successful in getting the video released via FOIA, but I'm sure it was their attempt that caused someone with a conscience at DOD to look at the video and leak it to Wikileaks. I'm not saying Wikileaks isn't providing a valuable service, but to try and say they are doing investigative reporting and Reuters isn't is highly disingenuous.
On the post: But How Could Wikileaks Break A Story Without Traditional Newspaper Backing?
Whose reporters died in the video????
On the post: Publisher Realizes Google Books Isn't Evil, But Quite Beneficial
Print them out?!?
Even if it were true, what idiot would print out an ebook? That's like downloading an MP3 and copying it to cassette.
On the post: Can The USPS Really Restrict What You Do With Photographs Of WPA Murals?
Re: Re: Commissioned does not mean work-for-hire
The lawn already belonged to you before they mowed, of course it still belongs to you, besides, lawn mowing is not exactly a creative act. If you commission an artist to paint your portrait or a photographer to take you picture, you are paying for the physical artwork you receive, not the copyright on that piece of art.
"Yes, a commissioned work is a work for hire, claiming that they weren't employees is irrelevant."
It is VERY relevant. Copyright for a work automatically gets assigned to the artist except in a very few instances. One is where the artist specifically, contractually agrees to reassign copyright to another party. Another is when they perform creative work as part of their normal employment.
"Unless the contract specifically sates that the work belongs to the artist, the work should automatically belong to the person who bought it. Just like if I buy a product from a store it can reasonably be assumed it belongs to me."
Wrong, the artist is always the default copyright holder unless the contract specifically states otherwise. Owning a physical object is not the same thing as controlling the copyright on that object. Whether it is a unique, one-of-a-kind item like a painting or a mass-produced item like a DVD makes no difference. Even when the artist no longer possesses the original, they are usually still the copyright holder.
"More examples of how broken our IP system This law was intended not to benefit the public but to benefit special interest groups which should reasonably raise questions as to the intended purpose of other aspects of our broken laws."
Don't blame me, I'm not saying that's how the law should be; I'm telling you how the law currently is.
On the post: UK Newspaper Drops Paywall After Less Than 10 People Subscribe
Re: Sometimes works, sometimes
On the post: Can The USPS Really Restrict What You Do With Photographs Of WPA Murals?
Commissioned does not mean work-for-hire
Why would you assume that? The Post Office may own the physical murals but they probably don't hold the copyright on them. A commissioned artwork is generally not a work-for-hire situation (i.e. the artists were not employees of the USPS) and unless the USPS specifically stated in the contract that the copyright would be assigned to them, the artists would be the copyright holders. While a work produced by the US government is immediately in the public domain, that's probably not the case here. A painting from 1934 would not enter the public domain until 2029.
On the post: Inventor Claims He Got Patent 20 Years After Filing... But Details Missing
Re:
On the post: Teens Face Felony Charges Over Girl Who Committed Suicide
Re: A different way of looking at it
On the post: Bad Things Happen When Politicians Think They Understand Technology
Re:
On the post: Open Sourcing A Disease Diagnosis
Re:
On the post: Judges Interpreting Emoticons? :-(
Sarc
On the post: How Much Money Can You Make For Others, Rather Than Yourself?
The Dark Side
There's a dark side to that also. People trust rumors/urban legends passed to them by people they know, but ignore the experts because they are strangers to them.
Next >>