Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site?
If there is no copyright there is no need to ask permission. You don't need to ask permission for everything. Did you ask permission to get out of bed this morning?
Typical IP maximalist and village idiot mantra: "If you don't agree with me, you are against everything I stand for." There is no middle ground...everything is absolute.
I don't agree with "freeloading." I pay for what I consume, when the author/artist/creator asks for payment. However, I don't agree with this law because it breaks the internet, can be abused by folks who don't have a proper claim (since there is no due process and all that is required is an accusation,) and it isn't fair for the consumer. So I guess in your eyes, I am a freeloader. Well, hate to say it, but there are far more of us than there are of you...and sooner or later, the pendulum will swing the other way.
Why doesn't the city change their traffic bylaw to decrease camera related offences to $1.00.
I am not sure about how Texas laws are set up, but I am familiar with a number of other states, and usually the city doesn't have a choice in how much a fine is for a traffic offense because it is set by the state. However, in this case, since it sounds like the law is a civil infraction and not a criminal one (based on comments from others above,) it sounds like that would be possible. In California, where I am most familiar with the law, the fine for running a stoplight or speeding is set by state statues and the city has no control over the fine. However, for city ordinances, the city can determine the fine and can set it to $1.00. Depends on the law.
How are animals generally treated under laws that apply to people?
We actually give animals less legal protections (for copyrights) than we give inanimate objects and fictional concepts. Pretty sad, really. A corporation can own a copyright, but not an animal. Of course, corporations are probably not far off from removing our ability to own copyrights because we are animals.
Meanwhile no one seems to care that you have to pay taxes on property you actually own in the form of land. Funny how these things seem to matter more for Electronics and Entertainment, but no one is bitching about the real issues of substance.
Heh, finally something I agree with.
The government should tax intellectual property. I suggest they do so on a yearly basis, and anyone delinquent in their tax payment should lose their copyright. This will remove all issues with orphaned works and should bring copyright back into the workable realm. If you want intellectual property to be like real property, this would go a long way to bringing it in line.
That way Disney gets to keep Mickey Mouse as long as they want, and I get to use the words of Aldous Huxley on a website without having to pay off a company who has nothing to do with Huxley or his descendants taking taxes from a work that was written 80 years ago.
A companies rights to their own property is far a bigger issue then an end users fabricated rights to largely unused features.
First of all, companies should never have individual rights. The fact that they are is what is getting us into the most problems these days. As soon as a company can sit on death row for murdering someone, or sit in prison for committing a crime is the moment that a company should have individual rights. And don't get me started on work for hire...which should be illegal since it is little more than slavery.
Second, when I buy something, I should have the right to do with it what I want so long as I do not infringe on your rights. If I choose to use the software you created to do something for which you did not intend it to be used for, that should be my right so long as I am not infringing on your rights, and copyright is not a right.
Whether or not I can distribute my modifications, I'll agree is something you have every right to prevent, but making modifications to what you sold me should never be legally prevented. If you do not agree, fine...let us know what company you work for so that we can avoid you in the future and we can move on.
9/11 pretty much stopped on the fourth plane, once the passengers found out that the terrorists were using the planes as guided missiles. Had that plane left the same time as the others, and had no contact been made after the other planes hit the towers, it likely would have ended differently. However, once the passengers realized that they were in a no-win situation, they were determined to stop the terrorists...and are lauded as heros (and they were.)
However, given the number of incidents that have happened since where passengers brought a swift end to problems in the air...even when those problems weren't terror related...the days of hijacking are over, period. At least until we get complacent and go back to the "don't do anything and you'll live" attitude. But I don't think that will happen again.
Nope, I think Thomas pretty much got it right. I've flown quite recently and was insulted, rapescanned, and then groped. And to add insult to injury, when I returned back to the US from Japan, TSA in San Francisco *added* a camera to my bag that wasn't there when the Japanese equivalent of TSA rifled through my checked baggage (with me present, unlike the TSA,) and sealed my bag before loading it on the plane. And to add insult to injury...I called TSA looking for a way to send the camera back so that it could be returned, and after spending several hours on the phone and a couple more via email filling out various report forms, nobody ever gave me an address to send the camera to. So not only do they steal your stuff from the bag, but they put your stuff in other people's bags.
I prefer the Japanese way...open the bag in front of the individual, so that they can see exactly what you are doing. Opening the bag in secret, the TSA way, is how things get stolen. If Al Queda did infiltrate the TSA, it wouldn't be too difficult for them to add a bomb to some unsuspecting person's luggage, since they steal or mix up contents of luggage and don't have any sort of oversight to speak of (TSA told me that they did have cameras watching the area, and would review them, but I figured that was a farce because they never called back.)
Not necessarily. I didn't apply for or receive a Social Security Number until I was 15 years old. Since 1990, parents apply for SSNs for their children up to 1 year after birth, and this is now required by law, which I personally believe should be illegal and the child should apply for it when they first go for a job or become elegible to pay taxes or receive benefits. There are several examples of parents fraudulently using their children's SSNs. If dj haras was born before 1986, and didn't need it until 2002, he could have been granted that particular number.
Geeks would be Ozzy Osborne (look up the original definition)
A bat is not a chicken, but the objection remains.
A Geek is a circus performer who bites the heads off of chickens during their act.
Ozzy bit the head off of a bat during a performance.
However, the word "geek", like "fag" and "hack", have changed meanings over the years, which is common with live languages. Just because they meant something 100 years ago doesn't mean that they will continue to have the same meaning now. Robert Heinlein used the word "geek" to ascribe to extremely knowledgable (almost fanatical) people in 1952, and even then, the word was commonly used for its new meaning then too.
That world wide web thing? Who invented it ? Where was he working?
He? If I recall correctly, it was developed by five gents at the University of Minnesota: Mark McCahill, Farhad Anklesaria, Paul Lindner, Daniel Torrey, and Bob Alberti. The world wide web existed long before it got its famous name.
That is, if you accept the fact that http replaced gopher (though it is debatable as to which was superior.) If, however, you conveniently forget that part of history, then it would be Tim Berners-Lee, an independent contractor at CERN who "invented" the world wide web.
I don't understand why someone would want to just take someone's idea, modify it such a small amount, then pretend it was all their own idea.
You are being a hypocrite then, as Anonymous Coward has presenting this same idea for the last six years or so, and you come in here and post the same idea as your own and pretended that it was your own idea.
See how this works...
There are no new ideas...they have all been thought before. I welcome you to prove me wrong, if you can present an idea that is purely unique and that isn't based on previous ideas, then I will stand corrected.
Implementations of ideas...yes... Once you get passed this misconception that you come up with new and unique ideas 99.9999% of the time, you will continue to live in the dark ages.
Unless they are not creatively talented enough to stand on their own two feet. It's called credit where credit is due.
We all base stuff off of things that came before. Sometimes, we do the right thing and disclaim where we got the ideas from. Other times we pretend it is our own. And even other times, we think it is our own even though we heard it from someone else and forgot where it came from.
While I find your comment to be intelligent and an interesting take on the matter, I feel that the whole discussion is missing the point. The Cambell's painting was free advertising because it was a giant Cambell's can.
I think the discussion here hits the point directly...Ideas cannot be copyrighted, and neither can facts (a pose is a fact, whether it is drawn, photographed, video taped, etc,) no matter how much the news entertainment and sporting industries like to claim otherwise. Campbells may have had a trademark suit against Warhol, but they couldn't really do anything about him painting their product from a copyright standpoint. And whether or not the picture was easy for folks to identify isn't the issue there, nor here, in the fact that the artist took something in another format and created something new from it. And nowhere is it said, in the original article or in Mike's synopsis that the artist claimed the original work as theirs.
The sad thing, I believe, is that he still would have been sued had he posted the disclaimer as to where the photo came from.
What if I did a painting based on a Christian artists loving portrayal of Christ, but I made it Satanic.
The same can be said about any religion. Fanatics exist everywhere. If you did a picture of Jesus, and somehow did it Satanic, I wouldn't care...but many Christians likely would, not from a copyright standpoint, but from an Idol Worship standpoint. Copyright has nothing to do with this anyway...ideas cannot be copyrighted, and I know of no photographs of the Messiah. Bad analogy. Nothing in copyright would restrict you from creating a Satanic Jesus...it's already been done before.
On the other-hand, any picture of the Flying-Spaghetti Monster without expressed written permission of the FSM will likely get me angry -- not.
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: Re:
If there is no copyright there is no need to ask permission. You don't need to ask permission for everything. Did you ask permission to get out of bed this morning?
Nope...and now his mom is pissed.
On the post: Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed
Re:
News of the World went out of business. Its parent corp, News Corp, is still very much in business.
On the post: Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Typical IP maximalist and village idiot mantra: "If you don't agree with me, you are against everything I stand for." There is no middle ground...everything is absolute.
I don't agree with "freeloading." I pay for what I consume, when the author/artist/creator asks for payment. However, I don't agree with this law because it breaks the internet, can be abused by folks who don't have a proper claim (since there is no due process and all that is required is an accusation,) and it isn't fair for the consumer. So I guess in your eyes, I am a freeloader. Well, hate to say it, but there are far more of us than there are of you...and sooner or later, the pendulum will swing the other way.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Newport Television Abusing DMCA To Try To Silence Criticism
Re: Re:
Sadly, the only worthwhile news around here comes from Comedy Central.
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re:
I think that is part of the joke. You are supposed to laugh.
On the post: Legal Technicality Forces Houston To Turn Its Redlight Cameras Back On, Even Though It Wants Them Off
Re: Here is a Solution
I am not sure about how Texas laws are set up, but I am familiar with a number of other states, and usually the city doesn't have a choice in how much a fine is for a traffic offense because it is set by the state. However, in this case, since it sounds like the law is a civil infraction and not a criminal one (based on comments from others above,) it sounds like that would be possible. In California, where I am most familiar with the law, the fine for running a stoplight or speeding is set by state statues and the city has no control over the fine. However, for city ordinances, the city can determine the fine and can set it to $1.00. Depends on the law.
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
Re:
We actually give animals less legal protections (for copyrights) than we give inanimate objects and fictional concepts. Pretty sad, really. A corporation can own a copyright, but not an animal. Of course, corporations are probably not far off from removing our ability to own copyrights because we are animals.
On the post: Sony CEO: We Were Hacked By Freetards Who Just Want Everything Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Most Modern Hackers are Freetards....
In interest of full disclosure, it isn't an original idea. I've heard other people suggest it before.
However, I agree, it would be awesome to see them squirm, even though in reality such a tax would just be passed on to us, the customers.
On the post: Danish Law Enforcement Would Like To Outlaw Anonymous Use Of The Internet
Re: Re:
Posting as Anonymous Coward, your reputation is already in tatters.
On the post: Sony CEO: We Were Hacked By Freetards Who Just Want Everything Free
Re: Re: Re: Most Modern Hackers are Freetards....
Heh, finally something I agree with.
The government should tax intellectual property. I suggest they do so on a yearly basis, and anyone delinquent in their tax payment should lose their copyright. This will remove all issues with orphaned works and should bring copyright back into the workable realm. If you want intellectual property to be like real property, this would go a long way to bringing it in line.
That way Disney gets to keep Mickey Mouse as long as they want, and I get to use the words of Aldous Huxley on a website without having to pay off a company who has nothing to do with Huxley or his descendants taking taxes from a work that was written 80 years ago.
On the post: Sony CEO: We Were Hacked By Freetards Who Just Want Everything Free
Re: Re: Re: Most Modern Hackers are Freetards....
...
A companies rights to their own property is far a bigger issue then an end users fabricated rights to largely unused features.
First of all, companies should never have individual rights. The fact that they are is what is getting us into the most problems these days. As soon as a company can sit on death row for murdering someone, or sit in prison for committing a crime is the moment that a company should have individual rights. And don't get me started on work for hire...which should be illegal since it is little more than slavery.
Second, when I buy something, I should have the right to do with it what I want so long as I do not infringe on your rights. If I choose to use the software you created to do something for which you did not intend it to be used for, that should be my right so long as I am not infringing on your rights, and copyright is not a right.
Whether or not I can distribute my modifications, I'll agree is something you have every right to prevent, but making modifications to what you sold me should never be legally prevented. If you do not agree, fine...let us know what company you work for so that we can avoid you in the future and we can move on.
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
9/11 pretty much stopped on the fourth plane, once the passengers found out that the terrorists were using the planes as guided missiles. Had that plane left the same time as the others, and had no contact been made after the other planes hit the towers, it likely would have ended differently. However, once the passengers realized that they were in a no-win situation, they were determined to stop the terrorists...and are lauded as heros (and they were.)
However, given the number of incidents that have happened since where passengers brought a swift end to problems in the air...even when those problems weren't terror related...the days of hijacking are over, period. At least until we get complacent and go back to the "don't do anything and you'll live" attitude. But I don't think that will happen again.
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: Re: Without a doubt..
Nope, I think Thomas pretty much got it right. I've flown quite recently and was insulted, rapescanned, and then groped. And to add insult to injury, when I returned back to the US from Japan, TSA in San Francisco *added* a camera to my bag that wasn't there when the Japanese equivalent of TSA rifled through my checked baggage (with me present, unlike the TSA,) and sealed my bag before loading it on the plane. And to add insult to injury...I called TSA looking for a way to send the camera back so that it could be returned, and after spending several hours on the phone and a couple more via email filling out various report forms, nobody ever gave me an address to send the camera to. So not only do they steal your stuff from the bag, but they put your stuff in other people's bags.
I prefer the Japanese way...open the bag in front of the individual, so that they can see exactly what you are doing. Opening the bag in secret, the TSA way, is how things get stolen. If Al Queda did infiltrate the TSA, it wouldn't be too difficult for them to add a bomb to some unsuspecting person's luggage, since they steal or mix up contents of luggage and don't have any sort of oversight to speak of (TSA told me that they did have cameras watching the area, and would review them, but I figured that was a farce because they never called back.)
On the post: TSA Chief Pistole: Maybe We Can Stop Petting Your Children
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wasn't it "President Skroob"? Did he get replaced?
On the post: Collateral Damage: In The Hunt For LulzSec, FBI Takes Down A Bunch Of Websites
Re: Re: Re: You all are goofy
Not necessarily. I didn't apply for or receive a Social Security Number until I was 15 years old. Since 1990, parents apply for SSNs for their children up to 1 year after birth, and this is now required by law, which I personally believe should be illegal and the child should apply for it when they first go for a job or become elegible to pay taxes or receive benefits. There are several examples of parents fraudulently using their children's SSNs. If dj haras was born before 1986, and didn't need it until 2002, he could have been granted that particular number.
On the post: John Lennon On Copying Others' Music: It's Not A Rip Off, It's A Love In
Re: Re: Re:
A bat is not a chicken, but the objection remains.
A Geek is a circus performer who bites the heads off of chickens during their act.
Ozzy bit the head off of a bat during a performance.
However, the word "geek", like "fag" and "hack", have changed meanings over the years, which is common with live languages. Just because they meant something 100 years ago doesn't mean that they will continue to have the same meaning now. Robert Heinlein used the word "geek" to ascribe to extremely knowledgable (almost fanatical) people in 1952, and even then, the word was commonly used for its new meaning then too.
On the post: Infamous Rebecca Black YouTube Video 'Friday' Taken Down Over Copyright Issue?
Re: Re:
Hey, I use that same checklist every morning.
Still not a zombie yet...but I wonder if I'd use the checklist if I was?
Pancakes are great, just don't put syrup on them.
On the post: Send In The Clones: Startup Raises $90 Million To Copy Other Startup
Re: Love the US -centric view
He? If I recall correctly, it was developed by five gents at the University of Minnesota: Mark McCahill, Farhad Anklesaria, Paul Lindner, Daniel Torrey, and Bob Alberti. The world wide web existed long before it got its famous name.
That is, if you accept the fact that http replaced gopher (though it is debatable as to which was superior.) If, however, you conveniently forget that part of history, then it would be Tim Berners-Lee, an independent contractor at CERN who "invented" the world wide web.
On the post: Another Appropriation Artist Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Are We Nearing The End Of Appropriation Art?
Re: Re: Re:
You are being a hypocrite then, as Anonymous Coward has presenting this same idea for the last six years or so, and you come in here and post the same idea as your own and pretended that it was your own idea.
See how this works...
There are no new ideas...they have all been thought before. I welcome you to prove me wrong, if you can present an idea that is purely unique and that isn't based on previous ideas, then I will stand corrected.
Implementations of ideas...yes... Once you get passed this misconception that you come up with new and unique ideas 99.9999% of the time, you will continue to live in the dark ages.
Unless they are not creatively talented enough to stand on their own two feet. It's called credit where credit is due.
We all base stuff off of things that came before. Sometimes, we do the right thing and disclaim where we got the ideas from. Other times we pretend it is our own. And even other times, we think it is our own even though we heard it from someone else and forgot where it came from.
While I find your comment to be intelligent and an interesting take on the matter, I feel that the whole discussion is missing the point. The Cambell's painting was free advertising because it was a giant Cambell's can.
I think the discussion here hits the point directly...Ideas cannot be copyrighted, and neither can facts (a pose is a fact, whether it is drawn, photographed, video taped, etc,) no matter how much the news entertainment and sporting industries like to claim otherwise. Campbells may have had a trademark suit against Warhol, but they couldn't really do anything about him painting their product from a copyright standpoint. And whether or not the picture was easy for folks to identify isn't the issue there, nor here, in the fact that the artist took something in another format and created something new from it. And nowhere is it said, in the original article or in Mike's synopsis that the artist claimed the original work as theirs.
The sad thing, I believe, is that he still would have been sued had he posted the disclaimer as to where the photo came from.
What if I did a painting based on a Christian artists loving portrayal of Christ, but I made it Satanic.
The same can be said about any religion. Fanatics exist everywhere. If you did a picture of Jesus, and somehow did it Satanic, I wouldn't care...but many Christians likely would, not from a copyright standpoint, but from an Idol Worship standpoint. Copyright has nothing to do with this anyway...ideas cannot be copyrighted, and I know of no photographs of the Messiah. Bad analogy. Nothing in copyright would restrict you from creating a Satanic Jesus...it's already been done before.
On the other-hand, any picture of the Flying-Spaghetti Monster without expressed written permission of the FSM will likely get me angry -- not.
On the post: Is Pretending Your Domain Name Has Been Seized By ICE The New Rickroll?
Re: Re: Re:
Oh great, Phillip...you want George Lucas to ask the ICE to shut down Techdirt for copyright infringement...don't you?
Next >>