If they want to be found, they need to make themselves known.
I think preservation and educational use of orphaned works falls within fair use. Since the use is non commercial, there would be no damages to the author if they ever did come out of the wood work.
Re: I don't like the opt-out part: assumes rights in itself.
Yet I'm for scanning old works -- so long as then in public domain
So you think it is wrong to attempt to preserve and share the works whose copyright holders cannot be found through a good faith effort?
they're deliberately skirting copyright, just seeing if they get away with infringing.
No. They are filling a void that our current poorly managed copyright laws do not fill. There are no previsions in current copyright law dealing with orphaned works. If there were, the universities would be working within them.
Meantime Google "monetizes" the public domain, which should be explicitly illegal.
You mean in the same way Disney monetizes the public domain? Should Disney's actions be illegal too?
I think the law as it stands is sufficient (minus some stupid lengths to copyright terms)
Let the universities publish these works. If the copyright owner comes forward and issues a take down notice, they can comply and everyone can be happy.
Well, when the original creator of the manuscript files a lawsuit against Rose, we can all find out just how effective the fair use defense is.
Until then, we will continue to operate under the idea that works created prior to 1923 are in the public domain and can be copied and redistributed as many times as people want.
I called several local printers, found one who could print them today, and e-mailed her my documents.
Emphasis mine.
The only book mentioned is the Book of Kells which was first printed in 800 or earlier.
If she had copied from any current work, she still would have been within fair use because she would not have been copying a substantial portion of the copyrighted work as she was only using images and scans of public domain works.
Why must you try to find fault with all cases of fair use being blocked by over zealous copyright police?
Does it matter where the scans came from? As long as she is not using any actually copyrighted material, like research or history from the book's writer, she should be in the clear. That is clearly fair use.
The source is not at issue, the content itself is.
Nope. It is a bias. You will notice that all other bars in the graph are proportional to one another. The Paul bar is way out of proportion. It should be nearly 3 times as long as the Romney bar.
No. 1 I am not arguing that this will ever be litigated/asserted. However, since you bring that point up, it very well could be.
No. 2 Even with your explanation of the "narrowness" of the claim based on the fulcrum aspect of the suit, it still fails to be unique over the Jim Henson suit.
The Ludo suit was created to allow a human operator to sit inside and be able to move naturally in every way possible. To do so, the suit would need to have an equilibrium point to function. If the suit were lopsided, the operator would not be able to move from a sitting to a standing position (as shown in the video) or even walk around.
Any creator of large costume suits would know this, making it obvious to those skilled in the art.
Based on the patent posted in the article, the dinosaur costume uses a series of levers and hinges to create a fluid natural motion of the animal's body parts.
The video posted of Jim Henson's Ludo character show similar levers and hinges being used to move his body parts.
On top of that, the claims in the patent application are rather broad and the patent itself says it applies to all large animals, fiction or real, living or extinct. The broadness of this patent would have prevented Jim Henson from creating Ludo had he not created that character and costume 25 years prior to the granting of this patent.
You are ignoring the question raised. Why should we be forced to fight bad patents after they are granted rather than being allowed to prevent them in the first place?
If a patent application is truly innovative, then the lack of strong objections would be enough to allow it through. However, if a bad patent gets a lot of prior art submitted during the application patent, it can be revised or rejected before causing any damage to the overall economic landscape.
The goal of the patent process should be to reward truly innovative inventors.
How is the number of people employed meaningless? That is one of the key arguments on the MPAA and RIAA's side. They trot out the 10s of thousands of jobs that are lost to infringement. These tech industry leaders are explaining that the passing of the PROTECT IP act will cost the tech industry thousands of jobs.
I think we should protect businesses that provide content and services that people want and use. Every single one of these tech leaders are providing just such content and services.
The MPAA and RIAA are not interested in protecting businesses that provide services and content people want. They are only interested in preserving their dying business models. If they were really interested in creating jobs around their content, they would be actively working with these tech companies to expand the reach of their content. Yet, they have decided that anything that will not bend to their will is evil and needs to be destroyed. Thus we have the PROTECT IP act.
Yes I have and they are the same old dinosaurs that have been screaming for more and more IP protection for the last 100 years. They keep asking for more and more time on their copyright terms. Then they complain that they don't have the resources to police their content's usage for 100 years and need the government to step in and do their work for them or at least force unwitting 3rd parties to do the policing for them.
One thing these companies have not shown is how the current laws are not sufficient. The only thing they can do is trot out the same arguments and lies they have been trotting out for the last 40 years. They cannot backup and prove any of the numbers they spout yet for some reason they continue to use them.
These tech industry leaders are showing with actual facts how the PROTECT IP act will do more harm than good. They are banding together to prevent the damage that will, not may, will be done if it passes.
Whether the idea originated with Mike or not matters little to none. The fact that hundreds of job creators are signing on to this and objecting to the PROTECT IP act is what really matters.
Have you looked at the list of people who have signed up on there? There are many many CEOs of tech companies who employ hundreds of people. Some on there employ thousands of people. These businesses are being threatened by this legislation and could end up shut down because someone in the music or movie industry doesn't like them.
Even for five years. Who is being incentivized to create more work? The kids aren't going to be incentivized.
I am not against the idea of copyright, but I don't agree with our obscene terms. A flat 28 year copyright was more than enough when it was implemented. If that lives on after the life of the author, so be it. But the idea that we are writing into law that an authors grand children should profit from the work is crazy.
No. What this does is make it near impossible for anyone to fight back against abuse by others.
If I am having trouble with say my ISP. I call up their customer service and record the conversation myself. If after many repeated calls my problem is not addressed, one recourse is to post the recording or transcription online or use it in a small claims dispute.
If the ISP can claim copyright infringement on me when I post this online, that is blocking me from accessing one avenue of constitutionally protected redress.
This ruling is flat out stupid and anyone who supports it does not understand copyright law (even in its current screwed up state) nor do they understand Constitutional law.
Sorry. This is Congress ignoring the problems of the patent system which have been highlighted in court and the media repeatedly.
It is a real problem that no one in any position to make the needed changes is willing to make because they fear lobbyists more than their own constituencies.
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re:
I think preservation and educational use of orphaned works falls within fair use. Since the use is non commercial, there would be no damages to the author if they ever did come out of the wood work.
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: I don't like the opt-out part: assumes rights in itself.
So you think it is wrong to attempt to preserve and share the works whose copyright holders cannot be found through a good faith effort?
they're deliberately skirting copyright, just seeing if they get away with infringing.
No. They are filling a void that our current poorly managed copyright laws do not fill. There are no previsions in current copyright law dealing with orphaned works. If there were, the universities would be working within them.
Meantime Google "monetizes" the public domain, which should be explicitly illegal.
You mean in the same way Disney monetizes the public domain? Should Disney's actions be illegal too?
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: We need an orphan works law
Let the universities publish these works. If the copyright owner comes forward and issues a take down notice, they can comply and everyone can be happy.
On the post: Accused Of Copyright Infringement For Reprinting Images Produced In 630 A.D.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until then, we will continue to operate under the idea that works created prior to 1923 are in the public domain and can be copied and redistributed as many times as people want.
On the post: Accused Of Copyright Infringement For Reprinting Images Produced In 630 A.D.
Re: Re: Re:
Emphasis mine.
The only book mentioned is the Book of Kells which was first printed in 800 or earlier.
If she had copied from any current work, she still would have been within fair use because she would not have been copying a substantial portion of the copyrighted work as she was only using images and scans of public domain works.
Why must you try to find fault with all cases of fair use being blocked by over zealous copyright police?
On the post: Accused Of Copyright Infringement For Reprinting Images Produced In 630 A.D.
Re:
The source is not at issue, the content itself is.
On the post: MPAA Mocks Entrepreneurs For Being Concerned About MPAA's Efforts To Stifle Innovation
Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.
On the post: According To MSNBC, If Online Voters Support Ron Paul, Their Votes Count Less
Re:
On the post: RIAA Sending DMCA Takedowns On *FREE* Music Being Distributed Directly Off Universal Music Website & Promoted By The Artist
Re:
When you get there, you will see some fairly large text reading: "CLICK ALBUM COVER FOR DOWNLOAD"
When you do so, you will be prompted to download a zip file with all the tracks inside.
With all that said, does it really matter if someone is linking to the page or the zip file directly? I would say no.
On the post: Did Jim Henson Infringe on a Recently Approved Patent?
Re:
No. 2 Even with your explanation of the "narrowness" of the claim based on the fulcrum aspect of the suit, it still fails to be unique over the Jim Henson suit.
The Ludo suit was created to allow a human operator to sit inside and be able to move naturally in every way possible. To do so, the suit would need to have an equilibrium point to function. If the suit were lopsided, the operator would not be able to move from a sitting to a standing position (as shown in the video) or even walk around.
Any creator of large costume suits would know this, making it obvious to those skilled in the art.
On the post: Did Jim Henson Infringe on a Recently Approved Patent?
Re:
The video posted of Jim Henson's Ludo character show similar levers and hinges being used to move his body parts.
On top of that, the claims in the patent application are rather broad and the patent itself says it applies to all large animals, fiction or real, living or extinct. The broadness of this patent would have prevented Jim Henson from creating Ludo had he not created that character and costume 25 years prior to the granting of this patent.
On the post: Did Jim Henson Infringe on a Recently Approved Patent?
Re: Just file it now
If a patent application is truly innovative, then the lack of strong objections would be enough to allow it through. However, if a bad patent gets a lot of prior art submitted during the application patent, it can be revised or rejected before causing any damage to the overall economic landscape.
The goal of the patent process should be to reward truly innovative inventors.
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what these tech companies provide that the MPAA and RIAA are trying to kill.
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Re: Re: Re:
I think we should protect businesses that provide content and services that people want and use. Every single one of these tech leaders are providing just such content and services.
The MPAA and RIAA are not interested in protecting businesses that provide services and content people want. They are only interested in preserving their dying business models. If they were really interested in creating jobs around their content, they would be actively working with these tech companies to expand the reach of their content. Yet, they have decided that anything that will not bend to their will is evil and needs to be destroyed. Thus we have the PROTECT IP act.
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Re: Re: Re:
One thing these companies have not shown is how the current laws are not sufficient. The only thing they can do is trot out the same arguments and lies they have been trotting out for the last 40 years. They cannot backup and prove any of the numbers they spout yet for some reason they continue to use them.
These tech industry leaders are showing with actual facts how the PROTECT IP act will do more harm than good. They are banding together to prevent the damage that will, not may, will be done if it passes.
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Re:
Have you looked at the list of people who have signed up on there? There are many many CEOs of tech companies who employ hundreds of people. Some on there employ thousands of people. These businesses are being threatened by this legislation and could end up shut down because someone in the music or movie industry doesn't like them.
This bill needs to fail.
On the post: Double Bogus DMCA Takedown All The Way!
On the post: Google Kills Tricorder Android App After CBS Sends A DMCA Takedown?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hanging Out?
I am not against the idea of copyright, but I don't agree with our obscene terms. A flat 28 year copyright was more than enough when it was implemented. If that lives on after the life of the author, so be it. But the idea that we are writing into law that an authors grand children should profit from the work is crazy.
On the post: Forget Wiretapping Laws, Now You Might Be Able To Use Copyright Law To Stop Anyone From Recording You Ever
Re: Re: Re:
If I am having trouble with say my ISP. I call up their customer service and record the conversation myself. If after many repeated calls my problem is not addressed, one recourse is to post the recording or transcription online or use it in a small claims dispute.
If the ISP can claim copyright infringement on me when I post this online, that is blocking me from accessing one avenue of constitutionally protected redress.
This ruling is flat out stupid and anyone who supports it does not understand copyright law (even in its current screwed up state) nor do they understand Constitutional law.
On the post: Congress Moves Forward With Useless Patent Reform That Won't Fix Any Real Problems
Re:
It is a real problem that no one in any position to make the needed changes is willing to make because they fear lobbyists more than their own constituencies.
Next >>