Re: Re: Re: BUT, you're still going with the wrong side:
"Your" art? Prove to me that you didn't use any prior art in the creation of "your" art and I will concede that it is wholly yours.
That's mostly a rhetorical statement because it's impossible to create art without using prior art. Everything comes from what came before. You create based on what you've learned and what you've experienced, so everything you use to create art is based on prior art. To claim it as yours is to say that by planting a few seeds in the ground, you own the Earth. You made a small incremental change in the scope of all of art history and expect everything it came from to be your property.
Cops should absolutely not have the leeway to punish people for exercising their 4th amendment rights. The whole idea of the 4th amendment was to avoid abuse like this. They're nothing but thugs with too much power. They should all be at the workforce center looking for new employers and banned from public safety service. Their job is to protect the civil rights of the people and instead they wipe their asses with them.
1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
1. Commercial use is a consideration, but it is not a negating factor. 4.It also has to be considered on a basis of impact on the affected work. As in the case of the Beastie Boys, the impact is rather nominal. 3. The amount used is rather small considering the song is a completely original recording that only uses the composition of the original BB song. The lyrics, vocals, instruments, and arrangement is new. 2. The song itself is a commentary on the original song because the lyrics (although it's assumed to be a sarcastic slant) take an opposing attitude compared to the literal phrasing of the original song.
Based on that criteria, it stands a high probability to be subject to fair use.
The use of that word makes it quite plain that the police are lying through their teeth. If that student was an actual threat to anyone, they would be able to be much more specific about what he did. "Looked ready for a fight" is a bullshit excuse, the kind of bullshit a kid would try to push on you if they wrecked the car when they didn't even have permission to take it. Are the police so immature that they make up lies as weak as a teenager would?
I think the evidence will show that the officer recklessly endangered, and possibly killed, a young man who's only crime was being brown and getting in the way of a thug with too much power that lacked the brains to use it properly.
I will never trust a cop so long as they continue to cover up the crimes they commit with impunity. No cop that breaks the law deserves to be protected. I don't care how great they are and how much they've done, police should be held to a stricter standard than most because they have been trusted with the authority and safety of their community. Power goes hand-in-hand with accountability and responsibility. If you abuse it, you deserve to be held accountable for it. If you have it, you need to use it to protect the people, not force submission. Leave your ego at home; this isn't an arena to live out your power fantasies.
People jump to shock and outrage because somebody made a game that comments on a tragedy without taking any time to engage in critical thinking so they can analyze the purpose of that game. Why do any due diligence when you can just jump on the moral outrage bandwagon and thrash at the guy blindly while clinging to the same old ignorant mantra? Freedom of speech is only valid when it doesn't make anyone butt hurt, apparently. This "think of the children" chestnut that is used as an excuse to ignore civil rights is exactly why this guy is getting all the undeserved vitriol.
Re: Re: Re: And now for something completely different...
Which is it? Is it iron or steel? I ask because it's a very important distinction. European iron was weak and brittle because the forges they used didn't get hot enough to make high quality carbon steel. The east, however, had been practicing the art of making carbon steel long before it was prevalent in the west. Steel is made with a very well distributed amount of carbon in iron to give it greater flexibility and strength and it was done with a crucible furnace that got as hot as 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. The Japanese were able to do this. In fact, the same method is still used today because it is the best known method for making steel.
It's owned by the Rothschild family and other money trust dynasties, just like the Fed. The whole system was set up to bend nations to their will. There's no doubt that the arbitration would go in Infinito's favor if it would benefit the banks. The best way to enslave people is to keep them unaware of it.
You're confusing copyright with trademark. Nintendo can continue to use Mario as their exclusive mark and still relinquish the copyright to it. As long as you don't use the trademark to mislead people to think it was made by Nintendo, then you can make as many Mario games and Mario remakes as you like.
As far as this project is concerned, I see it as an attempt to preserve a piece of culture and protect it from being lost to time and age.
No, it shouldn't. Miyamoto himself admitted that everything in Mario Bros. was based on Alice In Wonderland (i.e. eat mushrooms to get big, rabbit hole to another world/pipe to another world, etc.). So how does Mario get to be Nintendo's IP, when they built it from another work so heavily? You can't keep drawing from the public well and fail to replenish it. It will eventually run dry. So as with "IP" belonging solely to the creator for all time, they are taking from free and shared resources, but never replenishing them in kind. Content owners are all about taking what they can get away with and then forming business and political alliances so they can stop anyone else from doing the same to them. They're all about a double standard. They think they can take all they want and exploit it, but point fingers and scream "theft" when others do the same damn thing.
No, they didn't have it coming. They should have been able to do this without Nintendo's blessing. Nintendo had their chance to profit from this game and they did, massively. They don't need to anymore; they don't deserve it. This goes against everything copyright was supposed to promote. The point is to encourage the constant creation of new works, not to shit one golden egg and sit on it indefinitely.
Copyright, if it must exist, shouldn't last any longer than it takes to develop and market a new creative work. Such an example would be that if the peak market cycle of a movie is 5-7 years, hypothetically, the copyright should only last 5-7 years. This puts positive pressure on authors and artists to keep creating in order to stay ahead of the expiration of copyrights so they always have exclusive works they can profit from. This, I think, is more "balanced" than what we keep hearing about how to "balance" copyright from the talking heads' perspective.
Better take away those crayons!!! They could be used as a potential weapon! Just wait, some child will over sharpen their crayon to too fine of a point and someone will feel threatened by it. Without thinking, someone will call it a weapon and the whole thing starts over again. Anything can be a weapon if you put your mind to it. Which begs the question: who is smarter? Is it the child that figured out how to make a "weapon" from a crayon or the person that called it a "weapon"?
I second that! There is a massive deficit of critical thinking and rational response in this country. Zero tolerance means zero thinking. It's the perfect storm for people that are boiling over with paranoia and ignorance to destroy young minds. Just to make it clear, I'm saying that the vast majority of people have abandoned their capacity to make their own judgments. Our society is getting lazy. They don't want to take responsibility for their own children, they want it done for them. They don't want to think, they want someone to think for them. They don't want to decide how to live, they want to be told how to live. People are heading down a slippery slope that leads to mindless cattle just being herded around and controlled. No thinking; no questions; just blind obedience.
You know what? That's not the web's problem! That's the content industry's problem. They should fix their own problems internally instead of meddling in our infrastructure to make it align with their desires. Anybody who thinks that any of this is going to solve existing problems is blind. This will only add to the problem and it won't lead to one more dime of profit for anybody.
They should just admit the truth we already know...
The NSA isn't hunting terrorists, they're hunting dissent among the citizenry. They are tapping us all so they can watch for people organizing a revolt against the people in power. This smacks of an attempt to keep the serfs under watch so they don't come to their senses and toss their lords out on their asses. Capitalism and representative republic is just a revised version of feudalism that creates an illusion of upward mobility so that people are too busy chasing a rags to riches fantasy to notice how they're being used.
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: BUT, you're still going with the wrong side:
That's mostly a rhetorical statement because it's impossible to create art without using prior art. Everything comes from what came before. You create based on what you've learned and what you've experienced, so everything you use to create art is based on prior art. To claim it as yours is to say that by planting a few seeds in the ground, you own the Earth. You made a small incremental change in the scope of all of art history and expect everything it came from to be your property.
On the post: Kansas City Cops Tell Man They'll Kill His Dogs And Destroy His Home If Forced To Obtain A Search Warrant
4th Amendment?
On the post: Pixel Piracy Makers Offer Pirates Pirated Pirate Game
Re: Re: Re: Ya ever heard of shareware? Same idea. Not new.
On the post: Pixel Piracy Makers Offer Pirates Pirated Pirate Game
Re: Re:
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
1. Commercial use is a consideration, but it is not a negating factor. 4.It also has to be considered on a basis of impact on the affected work. As in the case of the Beastie Boys, the impact is rather nominal. 3. The amount used is rather small considering the song is a completely original recording that only uses the composition of the original BB song. The lyrics, vocals, instruments, and arrangement is new. 2. The song itself is a commentary on the original song because the lyrics (although it's assumed to be a sarcastic slant) take an opposing attitude compared to the literal phrasing of the original song.
Based on that criteria, it stands a high probability to be subject to fair use.
On the post: Cops And Schools Collide Again: School Fight Ends With Tased Teen In Medically-Induced Coma
Aggresive
I think the evidence will show that the officer recklessly endangered, and possibly killed, a young man who's only crime was being brown and getting in the way of a thug with too much power that lacked the brains to use it properly.
I will never trust a cop so long as they continue to cover up the crimes they commit with impunity. No cop that breaks the law deserves to be protected. I don't care how great they are and how much they've done, police should be held to a stricter standard than most because they have been trusted with the authority and safety of their community. Power goes hand-in-hand with accountability and responsibility. If you abuse it, you deserve to be held accountable for it. If you have it, you need to use it to protect the people, not force submission. Leave your ego at home; this isn't an arena to live out your power fantasies.
On the post: Cops And Schools Collide Again: School Fight Ends With Tased Teen In Medically-Induced Coma
Re:
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: Can somebody help me here?
On the post: Sandy Hook Video Game Prompts Everyone To Get Everything Wrong
What a surprise.
On the post: Sandy Hook Video Game Prompts Everyone To Get Everything Wrong
Re: Re: Re: And now for something completely different...
On the post: How Much Does Gold-Plated Corporate Sovereignty Cost? $1 Billion Or About 2% Of A Developing Country's GDP
World Bank...
On the post: Snowden Rebuts Sen. Feinstein's Claims That The NSA's Metadata Collection Is 'Not Surveillance'
Re: Newspeak dictionary
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Recreation Of Original Super Mario Bros. For No Reason Other Than It Can
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused...
As far as this project is concerned, I see it as an attempt to preserve a piece of culture and protect it from being lost to time and age.
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Recreation Of Original Super Mario Bros. For No Reason Other Than It Can
Re: Re: Re: Confused...
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Recreation Of Original Super Mario Bros. For No Reason Other Than It Can
Re: Confused...
No, they didn't have it coming. They should have been able to do this without Nintendo's blessing. Nintendo had their chance to profit from this game and they did, massively. They don't need to anymore; they don't deserve it. This goes against everything copyright was supposed to promote. The point is to encourage the constant creation of new works, not to shit one golden egg and sit on it indefinitely.
Copyright, if it must exist, shouldn't last any longer than it takes to develop and market a new creative work. Such an example would be that if the peak market cycle of a movie is 5-7 years, hypothetically, the copyright should only last 5-7 years. This puts positive pressure on authors and artists to keep creating in order to stay ahead of the expiration of copyrights so they always have exclusive works they can profit from. This, I think, is more "balanced" than what we keep hearing about how to "balance" copyright from the talking heads' perspective.
On the post: School Suspends Student Indefinitely For A Drawing Of A Cartoon Bomb He Made At Home
Re: Re: what about "ZERO TOLERENCE"
On the post: School Suspends Student Indefinitely For A Drawing Of A Cartoon Bomb He Made At Home
Re: Re: what about "ZERO TOLERENCE"
On the post: DRM In HTML5: What Is Tim Berners-Lee Thinking?
Re: Re: What I don't understand is...
On the post: Keith Alexander Still Playing Bogus Fear Card: 'People Will Die' Because Of Snowden Leaks
They should just admit the truth we already know...
Next >>