Forest_GS said: "The Pirate Bay is not illegal."
Quoted for truth. It's stupid how all the corporations got together and said, "Some people use torrents to illegally download copyrighted material, let's get them declared illegal." They totally ignored the multitude of legal uses like sharing user created content, open source freeware, and CC and PD files. Well, guess what, MAFIAA? Cars are sometimes used in vehicular homicide. Maybe we should have cars declared illegal while ignoring the legal uses for those like going to work, getting the kids to school, and taking somebody to receive medical treatment when you can't afford ambulance services. MAFIAA: Majorly Asinine Fucking Idiots' Association of America.
Having been reading articles on Techdirt for a while now, I believe that Mike Masnick supports the principle of copyright as it's enshrined in the constitution, he just doesn't support the way big companies like the litigious Mouse extend and abuse it. Feel free to correct me if I mistook your view, Mike.
"[T]he patent system should not be ignored. It should be fully examined, torn down and what little there was in it that was actually of benefit to society could then form the core of a new system."
Quoted for truth.
I know he's saying that licences are too expensive, so why not play music that doesn't require any? You don't think people will sit through a performance of classical music, you say? Okay, then adapt it, jazz it up a bit. I mean, look what Walter Murphy did with Beethoven's Fifth Symphony!
"From that point on, I can paste it all back together, cross out Turow's name and write "BY TIM CUSHING" all over the cover and put it in the 25-cent bin at the next garage sale, all without fear of litigious reprisal."
Scott Turow: *reads the above, then immediately 'lobbies' his representative to sponsor a bill to make plagiarism a federal offence.*
(BTW, Tim, it's LEGAL reprisal you needn't fear when plagiarising others' works, but you can still be sued for it as a civil offence.
From the jury instructions:
>>>
"A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called �prior art references.� If a patent claim is not new we say it is "anticipated� by a prior art reference. The description in the written reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."
Which means that all patents on existing mobile devices have always been invalid since L. Frank Baum pretty much described cell phones and tablets in 'The Master Key: An Electrical Fairy Tale' in 1901, long before the 'brick on a strap' was a twinkle in its inventor's eye!
FormerAC said: "There will never be a clear ruling because our government does not want one. They are wrong and they know they are wrong. But they have the power, and are willing fire at whatever target their masters decide."
The U.S. Government said: "Bending over for a Mouse is what we do best!"
AC said: "No, the author doesn't... because if the ebook had been available at the time the consumer purchased the hardcover book, then the consumer would have purchased the ebook INSTEAD. In either case of the timing of the releases in different media, the consumer is very unlikely to purchase BOTH."
The DVDs of movies aren't available during the time of the cinema release, but I don't go to the cinema instead, I just wait until the DVD release, then wait some more until HMV are selling them for under �10 each. OMG, I commit copyright infringement regularly by not seeing movies and films at the cinema as well as on DVD!
"Please STOP abusing my copyrighted handle!!!"
That's impossible because we can't stop what we never started. Handles/names cannot be copyrighted because they're de minimis under that section of IP law. If you were to claim your handle as an unregistered trademark, however...
You're in the wrong even if you remove the copyright notices from the Public Domain texts. Project Gutenberg says: "A Project Gutenberg ebook is made out of two parts: the public domain book and the non public domain Project Gutenberg trademark and license. If you strip the Project Gutenberg license and all references to Project Gutenberg from the ebook, you are left with a public domain ebook. You can do anything you want with that." Basically, if you want to restrict access to a book you got from Project Gutenberg, you MUST remove all reference to them as the publisher, or it's trademark infringement. Plus, if your company puts a book through a process to make it readable, they are the de facto publisher, which makes your claims suspicious, to say the least.
"'isn't any document that enters the
court system considered public
domain?'
No. Otherwise, any lawsuit regarding a work of art would make that work of art public domain (sort of defeating the purpose of filing the lawsuit)."
Me: So this means that any piece of music played in court during a copyright case enters the Public Domain just because the transcripts do? Kevin McCallister: "I don't think so!"
Here's a clue: Books, comics, MP3s, and DVDs are not legal documents. Either gen up and get wise, or just get out of the debate.
"Because we usually strive to make
our alterations fit the original vintage style..."
What's been quoted above is a description of restoration, not alteration. It isn't sufficiently substantial either. Any attempt to copyright this is like trying to copyright the sun, so rip away with a clear conscience. I believe class action suits are an option in the U.S.?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quoted for truth. It's stupid how all the corporations got together and said, "Some people use torrents to illegally download copyrighted material, let's get them declared illegal." They totally ignored the multitude of legal uses like sharing user created content, open source freeware, and CC and PD files. Well, guess what, MAFIAA? Cars are sometimes used in vehicular homicide. Maybe we should have cars declared illegal while ignoring the legal uses for those like going to work, getting the kids to school, and taking somebody to receive medical treatment when you can't afford ambulance services. MAFIAA: Majorly Asinine Fucking Idiots' Association of America.
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Follows Apple In Unnecessarily Pulling App That Allowed A Little Girl To Speak
About Autistics
On the post: Google Follows Apple In Unnecessarily Pulling App That Allowed A Little Girl To Speak
Re: Re: Re:
Quoted for truth.
On the post: Google Follows Apple In Unnecessarily Pulling App That Allowed A Little Girl To Speak
Re: An advantage of Android
For me it isn't, it just doesn't work.
On the post: Robot Makers Redesign Robot After Google Refuses To Give Permission To Make Android-Style Bots
Re: For Eons, no-one could halt the progress of mankind.
Let's not forget their incestuous bastard child, 'The Trademark'.
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
What's this guy's beef?
On the post: Authors Guild Continues To Battle The Present; Attacks Another Legal Service As 'Infringing'
How laws are made
Scott Turow: *reads the above, then immediately 'lobbies' his representative to sponsor a bill to make plagiarism a federal offence.*
(BTW, Tim, it's LEGAL reprisal you needn't fear when plagiarising others' works, but you can still be sued for it as a civil offence.
On the post: Samsung/Apple Jury Foreman's Explanation For Verdict Shows He Doesn't Understand Prior Art
Potential patent invalidation
>>>
"A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called �prior art references.� If a patent claim is not new we say it is "anticipated� by a prior art reference. The description in the written reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."
Which means that all patents on existing mobile devices have always been invalid since L. Frank Baum pretty much described cell phones and tablets in 'The Master Key: An Electrical Fairy Tale' in 1901, long before the 'brick on a strap' was a twinkle in its inventor's eye!
On the post: Oops: After Seizing & Censoring Rojadirecta For 18 Months, Feds Give Up & Drop Case
Masters
The U.S. Government said: "Bending over for a Mouse is what we do best!"
On the post: Misguided Outrage At NY Times' Ethicist Over Ethics Of Downloading A Book
Re: Re:
The DVDs of movies aren't available during the time of the cinema release, but I don't go to the cinema instead, I just wait until the DVD release, then wait some more until HMV are selling them for under �10 each. OMG, I commit copyright infringement regularly by not seeing movies and films at the cinema as well as on DVD!
On the post: Rewriting An AP Story Just To Show We Can
@ Steelwolf
That's impossible because we can't stop what we never started. Handles/names cannot be copyrighted because they're de minimis under that section of IP law. If you were to claim your handle as an unregistered trademark, however...
On the post: Canadian Ebook Store Offers 'Free' Public Domain Ebooks -- Claims Copyright Says You Can Only Make 1 Copy
@ Michael Tamblyn
On the post: Aaron Swartz Indictment Leading People To... Upload JSTOR Research To File Sharing Sites
A new advert
On the post: Westlaw And Lexis-Nexis Sued AGAIN Over Claims That They're Infringing On Copyrights Of Legal Filings Themselves
Re: Re:
court system considered public
domain?'
No. Otherwise, any lawsuit regarding a work of art would make that work of art public domain (sort of defeating the purpose of filing the lawsuit)."
Me: So this means that any piece of music played in court during a copyright case enters the Public Domain just because the transcripts do? Kevin McCallister: "I don't think so!"
Here's a clue: Books, comics, MP3s, and DVDs are not legal documents. Either gen up and get wise, or just get out of the debate.
On the post: Game Developers Concerned About A Potentially Closed Windows 8
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2012 @ 10:18am
Probably, but I can imagine people calling it Winblows H8. With the company name, Micro$##t, in front...
On the post: App Developer: Android OS Built For Piracy And Consumer Choice Sucks
Android OS Built For Piracy
On the post: Why People Pirate: The Story Of Avatar
Re: huh what?
Do you mean 'Dances with Smurfs'?
On the post: Can You Re-Copyright Photos In The Public Domain?
Copyrighting the Sun
our alterations fit the original vintage style..."
What's been quoted above is a description of restoration, not alteration. It isn't sufficiently substantial either. Any attempt to copyright this is like trying to copyright the sun, so rip away with a clear conscience. I believe class action suits are an option in the U.S.?
Next >>