"they will claim the letter is copyrighted material and demand it be taken down"
Easily handled with a sue-me EULA that says reading and responding to the site constitutes agreement with the terms which include publication of all legal mail.
...IF he words it so that submission of the work constitutes an agreement that includes relinquishing rigths, AND IF it is clarified that the "copyright" on the title is only a copyright on the title in so much as it is connected to the associated published code/derivatives.
Basically the idea is that the copyright can't simply be on the title alone, but the title is naturally included insomuch as it is connected to the rest of the work.
I'm impressed with this guy's approach and willingness to reason and I think it demonstrates practical good sense, the likes of which isn't normally featured on this blog. It's not going to stop cheating outright, but the preventative measure seems appropriate to the situation.
"If you do install TweetDeck, know that it will slow your workstation."
Basically, they say it's okay to use - just don't expect them to upgrade your machine when it slows down, which it will.
I have to agree with others here. It sounds like Tweetdeck should be treated like a proof of concept and rewritten for better performance. I'm sure the NY Times has a hardware upgrade cycle like any other prudent IT shop. You don't just go upgrade crazy because of one badly written app. UNLESS of course you're ready to take out an ill-advised loan that can't be supported by your current business model - no wait, Mike you were against that, too.
Besides, open source development moves FAST. Give it a few weeks. Someone will have a better rendition sooner than you think.
Re: Re: The lawsuit is referring to retailers - not re-sellers
The first term is being used to refer to contractually obligated members of a distribution chain - stores that unload extra product or squeeze out extra profit by ebaying in a way that undermines (or at least seems to) the brand value of their vendors.
The second term is referring to joe schmoe who buys from an outlet or store within that same chain, and then, under no contractual obligation, resells the product as he sees fit according to the first sale doctrine.
It's late and I haven't checked the facts of the story, ans so I don't know just exactly what's happening in UK on this, and it's a holiday here in the US, so I may not do that, but that's pretty much what I read from the context here.
As to whether it's right or not, there is JUST ONE POINT where I have a very strong tendency to agree with even the most freedom-restrictive of laws, and that's when a sucker, reasonably informed and uncoerced, signs on the dotted line. Generally, if you agree to it, then you've generally bargained away your rights(obviously exceptions apply).
Inasmuch as we're talking about a process of tax planning and preparation, one of two things is going on - both of which invalidate any tax strategy/method as patentable:
1. It involves some aspect of game theory, as such, whatever is inventive about it is reduced to strategy, and therefore cannot be reduced to practice, ergo not patentable.
OR
2. It involves no game theory and is nothing more than a the result of a long, methodical process of optimization within an already existing, defined, codified, and volumized system of constraints, which means any qualified accountant could derive the same constraints and perform a duplicate process of optimization, and therefore it fails to be non-obvious, ergo not patentable.
Oh blessings! We pay homage to your glorious condescension!
"Most of the arguments...can be applied to real property"
Yes, most of them can! That is, except for the most central argument:
Whenever a copy is made,A unilaterally non-exclusive replication in both essence and substance of the so-called property occurs . When a copy is then distributed, the nature and form of the copy is has been transferred in full to the recipient without any transaction being enacted upon the original whatsoever.
This point begs several questions:
Is the right to reproduction and distribution inherent in the artifact of origin? or else, is the right fundamentally severed from the artifact?
If the originator no longer has possession of an original or a copy, how then might the copyright be preserved if the right is severed from the artifact? To which of the rightful copy-holders can the originator go in order to demand reproduction for his benefit? If no such copy-holder complies with those demands, how might the separate rights be transferred? Shall the right to make further copies be forever at an impasse?
If an exact copy, per se, were made - so as to be entirely fungible with the original and the two were then co-mingled, which may be retained and which distributed so that the originator retains his rights?
If the copy in question is emblazoned upon the mind of an individual, then can those thoughts be imprisoned for nothing more than the cause of monopoly?
On this point the existing law stands in complete contradiction to nature itself. There is no reconciliation between the two. The nature of the thing cannot be the question here.
Then the only question remaining is whether and what it is reasonable to impose the originator's rights upon the natural liberty of the copy-holder and what is the basis for withholding. On this point the original purpose of the law as it was created has become obsolete. There is no longer benefit to the originator to withhold rights from the copy-holder. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to be low-balled by our own reasoning.
In order to promote art and productive commerce, we have arbitrarily created rights that do not exist naturally (and have imposed upon freedoms that do so exist), as we once deemed reasonable. Now that those reasons (or at least the weight of their claim over and above what is natural)have been superseded by technological advancement, we have, purely by the construct of social cognitive dissonance, clung to a fabricated reality beyond reason.
The "complainers" aren't complaining about anything that has to do with taking. There has NEVER been a question of taking. Within the concept of "copyright infringement" initial distribution has occurred, at least presumptively. Nothing is being taken that was not already given.
In fact the natural right to reproduction and distribution lay with the form and stuff of any of all of the copies of an original. For both original and copy are, by nature original. Copyright has no further value to us than to inhibit our natural creativity - the same creativity for which we first fabricated copyright.
I'm not taking what is yours. I'm taking what you gave me under the mistaken presumption that you somehow kept some part of it, which in fact, both you and I know that you did not.
The whole "biggest threat inside" concept has nothing to do with a comparison of the hostile activity of outsider vs insider. The point is the vulnerability.
Nothing here touches on how many of those outside attacks were made possible by the un-measurable actions of insiders whether deliberately or not.
On the post: Homeland Security Still Plans To Search Laptops At Borders With No Probable Cause
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Music Reviewer's Blog Suspended For Promoting Music
Re: Clearly the record company
Easily handled with a sue-me EULA that says reading and responding to the site constitutes agreement with the terms which include publication of all legal mail.
On the post: Swedish Regulators Say The Word 'bank' Not Allowed In Any Domain Names... Except If You're A Bank
Re: Does this include...
On the post: Can You Copyright Homework Titles?
This one might hold up...
Basically the idea is that the copyright can't simply be on the title alone, but the title is naturally included insomuch as it is connected to the rest of the work.
I'm impressed with this guy's approach and willingness to reason and I think it demonstrates practical good sense, the likes of which isn't normally featured on this blog. It's not going to stop cheating outright, but the preventative measure seems appropriate to the situation.
On the post: A Hunger Strike Isn't A New Business Model And It Won't Stop File Sharing
Alternative measure
On the post: Swedish Court Get The Pirate Bay Taken Down
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Australia Explores Whether Genes Should Be Patentable
Great!
On the post: NY Times Says No To Useful App Rather Than Improving Memory
More like a heads-up than a heads up their...
Basically, they say it's okay to use - just don't expect them to upgrade your machine when it slows down, which it will.
I have to agree with others here. It sounds like Tweetdeck should be treated like a proof of concept and rewritten for better performance. I'm sure the NY Times has a hardware upgrade cycle like any other prudent IT shop. You don't just go upgrade crazy because of one badly written app. UNLESS of course you're ready to take out an ill-advised loan that can't be supported by your current business model - no wait, Mike you were against that, too.
Besides, open source development moves FAST. Give it a few weeks. Someone will have a better rendition sooner than you think.
On the post: According To Author's Guild, You Cannot Read Books Out Loud
Re: Author book signings
On the post: According To Author's Guild, You Cannot Read Books Out Loud
Sorry kindle
On the post: Senator Feinstein Trying To Sneak ISP Copyright Filtering Into Broadband Stimulus Bill
Not just a privacy violation
This is insanity. This is about as unAmerican as it gets!
On the post: Can A Company Ban Retailers From Selling Its Products On eBay?
Re: Re: The lawsuit is referring to retailers - not re-sellers
The second term is referring to joe schmoe who buys from an outlet or store within that same chain, and then, under no contractual obligation, resells the product as he sees fit according to the first sale doctrine.
It's late and I haven't checked the facts of the story, ans so I don't know just exactly what's happening in UK on this, and it's a holiday here in the US, so I may not do that, but that's pretty much what I read from the context here.
As to whether it's right or not, there is JUST ONE POINT where I have a very strong tendency to agree with even the most freedom-restrictive of laws, and that's when a sucker, reasonably informed and uncoerced, signs on the dotted line. Generally, if you agree to it, then you've generally bargained away your rights(obviously exceptions apply).
On the post: Repair A Computer In Texas Without A License And Face A Year In Jail
Re: Mas, you're better than this
On the post: Congress Trying To Make It Legal To Ignore Tax Planning Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congress Trying To Make It Legal To Ignore Tax Planning Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. It involves some aspect of game theory, as such, whatever is inventive about it is reduced to strategy, and therefore cannot be reduced to practice, ergo not patentable.
OR
2. It involves no game theory and is nothing more than a the result of a long, methodical process of optimization within an already existing, defined, codified, and volumized system of constraints, which means any qualified accountant could derive the same constraints and perform a duplicate process of optimization, and therefore it fails to be non-obvious, ergo not patentable.
On the post: The Other Future Of Copyright: The Draconian Suffocating One
Re:
"Most of the arguments...can be applied to real property"
Yes, most of them can! That is, except for the most central argument:
Whenever a copy is made,A unilaterally non-exclusive replication in both essence and substance of the so-called property occurs . When a copy is then distributed, the nature and form of the copy is has been transferred in full to the recipient without any transaction being enacted upon the original whatsoever.
This point begs several questions:
Is the right to reproduction and distribution inherent in the artifact of origin? or else, is the right fundamentally severed from the artifact?
If the originator no longer has possession of an original or a copy, how then might the copyright be preserved if the right is severed from the artifact? To which of the rightful copy-holders can the originator go in order to demand reproduction for his benefit? If no such copy-holder complies with those demands, how might the separate rights be transferred? Shall the right to make further copies be forever at an impasse?
If an exact copy, per se, were made - so as to be entirely fungible with the original and the two were then co-mingled, which may be retained and which distributed so that the originator retains his rights?
If the copy in question is emblazoned upon the mind of an individual, then can those thoughts be imprisoned for nothing more than the cause of monopoly?
On this point the existing law stands in complete contradiction to nature itself. There is no reconciliation between the two. The nature of the thing cannot be the question here.
Then the only question remaining is whether and what it is reasonable to impose the originator's rights upon the natural liberty of the copy-holder and what is the basis for withholding. On this point the original purpose of the law as it was created has become obsolete. There is no longer benefit to the originator to withhold rights from the copy-holder. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to be low-balled by our own reasoning.
In order to promote art and productive commerce, we have arbitrarily created rights that do not exist naturally (and have imposed upon freedoms that do so exist), as we once deemed reasonable. Now that those reasons (or at least the weight of their claim over and above what is natural)have been superseded by technological advancement, we have, purely by the construct of social cognitive dissonance, clung to a fabricated reality beyond reason.
The "complainers" aren't complaining about anything that has to do with taking. There has NEVER been a question of taking. Within the concept of "copyright infringement" initial distribution has occurred, at least presumptively. Nothing is being taken that was not already given.
In fact the natural right to reproduction and distribution lay with the form and stuff of any of all of the copies of an original. For both original and copy are, by nature original. Copyright has no further value to us than to inhibit our natural creativity - the same creativity for which we first fabricated copyright.
I'm not taking what is yours. I'm taking what you gave me under the mistaken presumption that you somehow kept some part of it, which in fact, both you and I know that you did not.
On the post: Insiders No Longer The Biggest Threat To Computer Networks
Not the point!!
Nothing here touches on how many of those outside attacks were made possible by the un-measurable actions of insiders whether deliberately or not.
On the post: Associated Press: Fair Use Limits You To Four Words; Five Words Costs $12.50
Re: Re: More from Robert Cox
"Not only did he describe bloggers as "free wheeling", but Hansell made it look like the boycott...was going to be over once the Associated Press had discussions "with representatives of the Media Bloggers Association" that would produce "guidelines" to impose on bloggers."
Worth a peek.
On the post: Blank Media 'Pirate Tax' Used To Fund New 'Pirate' Album
re:Anon Cow
Vapid troll.
On the post: Is That The Best Cato Can Do In Defense Of Copyright?
c'mon he did it on a bet
Nobody puts copyright in a corner!
Next >>