Re: Re: Re: Does this mean Queen song is on the outs
Thus my point, a nice circular argument.
So her name is potentially a derivative work and of questionable "ownership" as well. How can you copyright a descriptor anyway. I also thought there was no copyright on fashion.
We actually have a number of ways to do this: Berne Convention, WIPO, International Trade Agreements, and the like. A good list as a starting point is found here: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/
I think we should use what is already there and not enforce our laws on the sovereignty of other nations. It sets a bad precedent,makes us look like bullies on the international scene and also provides a way for other countries to begin to censor our peoples and freedoms.
I am all for sensible reforms and agreements. I am against the US declaring itself the IP cops of the world as it tends to ignore the harms in favor of greater oppression by means of economic warfare.
We really need to evaluate what the goals are and work towards them more holistically rather than in knee jerk reactions to questionable laws in the first place.
If in the world of the 1800's where technology let distribution be difficult, 14 years was considered enough protection, why are we talking protections lasting over a century now? Why are they not accepting the very distribution methods that pirates and others are using to distribute their goods? Why can't this be a real dialog that discusses at face value the issues rather than always clothing it in disingenuous characterizations?
Reforms are definitely needed. IP is not a tangible good and should not be treated like one. Should it be a protected item, yes. The problem is that fair usage and freedoms need to be considered as more and more ideas are locked up as if they were a physical object.
I have never seen how an idea was lessened by it being in more than one mind. Isn't this how freedoms and ideas are supposed to grow? They spread and become stronger in the sharing not weaker.
It is sad that the only way to legally send something to the public domain at creation is to intentionally put an "unclear copyright notice" on it so that there is never a clear copyright to assign to anyone.
Re: Re: Re: Maybe off topic: Netflix as streaming-only
yup.
I do it all the time. My PS3 in the bedroom streaming one movie while the kids downstairs stream a different one and the GF streaming one from the study on a PC.
A couple of legal torrent methods:
software patches (many game companies and a few software companies use this)
file distribution (I have shared things I've authored via torrent under essentially a use as you'd like license.)
So a civil offense of copyright violation required it to be treated as a criminal offense? I am having a hard time seeing that as a sensible reaction. If it is a violation of civil law why wasn't the action taken following civil law?
Also a correction to my post...As a side note, why were DCMA notices 'not' filed for the material before it went to this point? Isn't that where you start with infringement?
An analogy of sorts:
You seized my house cause there might be goods in there when you could have just tried a standard search warrant first. This seems to be the logic they are using here rather than try the more reasonable path first.
As a side note, why were DCMA notices filed for the material before it went to this point? Isn't that where you start with infringement?
How do you counterfeit a digital file? I'm confused..... I thought each one was identical to the original assuming a loss-less copy, and thus not a counterfeit, but a duplicate.
Also how did you get your counterfeit in my copyright? One is for expression and the other is a good. Does that mean we can go after plagiarists as counterfeiters? If so we have a whole new type of law practice opening up here.
So now providing a method to achieve something is the same as profiting from it?
Sweet!!!! We can sue gun maker for all murders for profiting from it. We can sue all car makers for all the times someone is killed in a car accident. We can even sue alcohol manufacturers for every DUI incident! You have stumbled on a gold mine here.
This link is a lot of info about what is legal for photos in most places......
here is an excerpt written by a lawyer:
Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers
The real issue is as follows:
Who took the pictures used for the game, and under what circumstances.
On the post: Where's A Business Method Patent When You Need One?
On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream
Re: Re: Re: Does this mean Queen song is on the outs
So her name is potentially a derivative work and of questionable "ownership" as well. How can you copyright a descriptor anyway. I also thought there was no copyright on fashion.
On the post: Massive Research Report On 'Piracy' In Emerging Economies Released; Debunks Entire Foundation Of US Foreign IP Policy
so how much for a license for congress?
On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re:
I think we should use what is already there and not enforce our laws on the sovereignty of other nations. It sets a bad precedent,makes us look like bullies on the international scene and also provides a way for other countries to begin to censor our peoples and freedoms.
I am all for sensible reforms and agreements. I am against the US declaring itself the IP cops of the world as it tends to ignore the harms in favor of greater oppression by means of economic warfare.
We really need to evaluate what the goals are and work towards them more holistically rather than in knee jerk reactions to questionable laws in the first place.
If in the world of the 1800's where technology let distribution be difficult, 14 years was considered enough protection, why are we talking protections lasting over a century now? Why are they not accepting the very distribution methods that pirates and others are using to distribute their goods? Why can't this be a real dialog that discusses at face value the issues rather than always clothing it in disingenuous characterizations?
Reforms are definitely needed. IP is not a tangible good and should not be treated like one. Should it be a protected item, yes. The problem is that fair usage and freedoms need to be considered as more and more ideas are locked up as if they were a physical object.
I have never seen how an idea was lessened by it being in more than one mind. Isn't this how freedoms and ideas are supposed to grow? They spread and become stronger in the sharing not weaker.
It is sad that the only way to legally send something to the public domain at creation is to intentionally put an "unclear copyright notice" on it so that there is never a clear copyright to assign to anyone.
On the post: Play By Play Of How HBGary Federal Tried To Expose Anonymous... And Got Hacked Instead
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
I would seriously buy that commenter a beer or 6 if I met them.
On the post: US Copyright Group Lawyers Suggest They're Allowed To Lie To People They're Demanding Cash From
Re:
This is going to be at issue if an example isn't made of these lawyers.
On the post: Netflix's Move From DVDs To Streaming Shows The Massive Value Of First Sale Doctrine
Re: Re: Re: Maybe off topic: Netflix as streaming-only
I do it all the time. My PS3 in the bedroom streaming one movie while the kids downstairs stream a different one and the GF streaming one from the study on a PC.
On the post: Would Twitter Be Liable For Links To Infringing Material?
Re: Contributory Infringement
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A couple of legal torrent methods:
software patches (many game companies and a few software companies use this)
file distribution (I have shared things I've authored via torrent under essentially a use as you'd like license.)
I am sure there are many more as well
On the post: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy
Re: re: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs
If I let you breath air am I allowed to suddenly charge you for it?
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re: Re: Re:
Also a correction to my post...As a side note, why were DCMA notices 'not' filed for the material before it went to this point? Isn't that where you start with infringement?
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re:
An analogy of sorts:
You seized my house cause there might be goods in there when you could have just tried a standard search warrant first. This seems to be the logic they are using here rather than try the more reasonable path first.
As a side note, why were DCMA notices filed for the material before it went to this point? Isn't that where you start with infringement?
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re:
Also how did you get your counterfeit in my copyright? One is for expression and the other is a good. Does that mean we can go after plagiarists as counterfeiters? If so we have a whole new type of law practice opening up here.
On the post: How ACTA Will Increase Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sweet!!!! We can sue gun maker for all murders for profiting from it. We can sue all car makers for all the times someone is killed in a car accident. We can even sue alcohol manufacturers for every DUI incident! You have stumbled on a gold mine here.
On the post: Beverage Company Sues Anheuser-Busch Over Totally Different Looking Can Design
On the post: MPAA Boss Defends Censorships With Blatantly False Claims
Re: Re:
Do you have the case this came from? I need to add it to a list. I'm starting a list of court cases that affect IP law from SCOTUS
On the post: Publicity Rights vs. Free Speech Goes To Court
This link is a lot of info about what is legal for photos in most places......
here is an excerpt written by a lawyer:
Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers
The real issue is as follows:
Who took the pictures used for the game, and under what circumstances.
Next >>