“He still doesn't know the two things about a song that can be copyrighted.”
Either the answer he gave you is correct, incorrect, or it’s not the answer to the question you were asking, but a different question’s answer. Since you haven’t called him out on why the answer he gave is incorrect, I suspect you’re asking a more nuanced question. It’s now on you to say how the question he’s answered differs from the question you asked. Otherwise, it’s more of a riddle that you’ve posed than a gauge of knowledge isn’t it? Riddles are fun, but I'm not sure they're all that useful in this discussion.
Enlighten us. Is his answer incorrect?
I stand corrected.
However, I can't get past the idea that copyright has the power to capture a public domain work for the purposes of derivative works.
Logically, it would be reasonable to consider if the public domain work and the copyrighted work had the same creator. I can also see how the creative entity should not have an unreasonable burden in copyrighting every single instance of the expression. However, it doesn’t seem as though that was a factor here.
Under a system in which the creator has the responsibility to register, it seems as though they should not have a claim to works left in the public domain or works derived from them.
That’s an interesting argument. However, you’re still arguing that you can take something that exists in the public domain, and copyright it. I don’t see how that does anything but open the public domain up to poachers. One minute, all that exists are the public domain images in the poster. The next minute, a copyrighted movie is released. Now the public domain images can’t be used to derive new works?
Incidentally, you’ve got the whole derivative thing backwards. Creating a derivative work doesn’t make it less OK to copy public domain works.
Mike, you really must learn to write with less FUD. Reading the comments here it is easy to see that you are confusing your children.
I'll give you points for style. Now..Substance, please.
The 84,000 domains registered under mooo were not controlled by mooo. Statements to the contrary are untrue. Congratulations. If you had any credibility before, I think it's just about evaporated.
mooo.com had total control over the subdomains. They could take them down at any time.
Is that your test, Joe? Is that what makes someone liable?
I understand that mooo.com isn't hosting the material. They're hosting the server that points people to the material. That role, I believe, gives them some responsibility for the sites they point to.
That role gives them the responsibility to comply with lawful requests from law enforcement to disable domains under theirs.
Guys, I think Joe believes that Mooo.com is hosting these sites. If that's true, I may forgive him for being so obstinate.
Joe,
Mooo.com does not necessarily host the offending sites. I hope that helps.
Joe,
You point out that others seem to insist on debating the law as they would like it to be, instead of as it actually is. It’s your turn, Joe.
The owners of the .com TLD have “set up a domain name that allows any number of subdomain names to be created under it and”…they…”are never responsible for anything that happens on those subdomains.” It works like that.
Mooo.com is acting as a registrar. They don’t have to host the subdomains’ sites to do this. They have as much control over a.moo.com as Verisign has over moo.com. They’re the registrar.
You do have considerable research facility. I beg you, use it. You’re in a safe place, Joe. We’re here to help.
Tool- ...
2.
a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function c : a means to an end
A thing is a tool in as much as it is useful in facilitating an activity. (i.e. Religion is a tool of the oppressor.)
What exactly would be your point, anyway? If it's a tool, taking it away poses a hardship. If it's not a tool, what is it that it should be so important? Where are you going with this?
Yes, Joe can be harsh. And Obstinate. And intransigent. And smug. And some of the things he’s said have caused me to fall asleep crying into my pillow. And I’m glad that Mike keeps track of these things so we can better hold people accountable for their arguments and past behaviors. But this is a new day and it’s after 9a.m. MST and Joe has not attacked anyone yet. That’s a good start.
You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not. So…Although I’m glad that Mike doesn’t forget, I hope we can all forgive. For now. For science.
Now, let’s attack his worthless perspective and ideas!!!
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
Either the answer he gave you is correct, incorrect, or it’s not the answer to the question you were asking, but a different question’s answer. Since you haven’t called him out on why the answer he gave is incorrect, I suspect you’re asking a more nuanced question. It’s now on you to say how the question he’s answered differs from the question you asked. Otherwise, it’s more of a riddle that you’ve posed than a gauge of knowledge isn’t it? Riddles are fun, but I'm not sure they're all that useful in this discussion.
Enlighten us. Is his answer incorrect?
On the post: Irish Gov't Trying To Sneak Through Massive Copyright Law Changes Via Questionable Legal Process
Re: Denial by the Minister
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re: Re: well
On the post: Irish Gov't Trying To Sneak Through Massive Copyright Law Changes Via Questionable Legal Process
Re: Denial by the Minister
"Abort! Abort! START THE SHREDDER!"
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re: Re: However
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
Classy.
Do you have any idea what Karl knows or doesn't know?
No, of course you don't.
You just got served.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: A Response
Are you saying that ICE should be involved in civil cases?
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
However, I can't get past the idea that copyright has the power to capture a public domain work for the purposes of derivative works.
Logically, it would be reasonable to consider if the public domain work and the copyrighted work had the same creator. I can also see how the creative entity should not have an unreasonable burden in copyrighting every single instance of the expression. However, it doesn’t seem as though that was a factor here.
Under a system in which the creator has the responsibility to register, it seems as though they should not have a claim to works left in the public domain or works derived from them.
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re:
Incidentally, you’ve got the whole derivative thing backwards. Creating a derivative work doesn’t make it less OK to copy public domain works.
I'll give you points for style. Now..Substance, please.
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re: Re:
What's a dictionary? I can't find that word anywhere in my wordsbook. You need to learn how to Smurf english.
On the post: Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain
Re:
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that your test, Joe? Is that what makes someone liable?
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That role gives them the responsibility to comply with lawful requests from law enforcement to disable domains under theirs.
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Joe,
Mooo.com does not necessarily host the offending sites. I hope that helps.
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You point out that others seem to insist on debating the law as they would like it to be, instead of as it actually is. It’s your turn, Joe.
The owners of the .com TLD have “set up a domain name that allows any number of subdomain names to be created under it and”…they…”are never responsible for anything that happens on those subdomains.” It works like that.
Mooo.com is acting as a registrar. They don’t have to host the subdomains’ sites to do this. They have as much control over a.moo.com as Verisign has over moo.com. They’re the registrar.
You do have considerable research facility. I beg you, use it. You’re in a safe place, Joe. We’re here to help.
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2.
a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function c : a means to an end
A thing is a tool in as much as it is useful in facilitating an activity. (i.e. Religion is a tool of the oppressor.)
What exactly would be your point, anyway? If it's a tool, taking it away poses a hardship. If it's not a tool, what is it that it should be so important? Where are you going with this?
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
Yes, Joe can be harsh. And Obstinate. And intransigent. And smug. And some of the things he’s said have caused me to fall asleep crying into my pillow. And I’m glad that Mike keeps track of these things so we can better hold people accountable for their arguments and past behaviors. But this is a new day and it’s after 9a.m. MST and Joe has not attacked anyone yet. That’s a good start.
You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not. So…Although I’m glad that Mike doesn’t forget, I hope we can all forgive. For now. For science.
Now, let’s attack his worthless perspective and ideas!!!
Next >>