But didn't Lucas also sell the rights to Star Wars to Disney?
He did. Ironically, he said he did so in order to allow others to build on his work.
They're definitely not very good about sharing with the public (which is ironic considering how many of their ideas come from literature in the public domain).
Which is what I am really concerned about. Lucas has been cool with Pink Five and with other Star Wars fanfilms, many of which have been far more creative. Disney hasn't. Time will tell, but I am expecting more of a Heinlein reaction than a Lucas reaction to playing in their playground.
Where do you draw the line? There are a number of fan films devoted to Star Wars which "live" in the Star Wars Universe, but yet draw very little if anything from the Star Wars movies themselves. Lucas has allowed them to live, but others have not. If I make a movie with a couple of ewoks (not that I have a habit of doing such a dreadful things,) I'm probably safe. But if I make a movie about a neo-fascist society building an army to take out an evil rodent race on another planet that attacks them with telephone poles, I suspect Heinlein's estate will be all over me in a heartbeat.
I believe it has too. Sure, a lot of it is rehashed over and over again, but in many ways stories that were made famous by the bard have been expanded to the point that we've seen a number of different possibilities for endings of Hamlet.
Of course, on its base level, every movie is built off of ideas that came before, so I don't have a problem with this, except when someone comes along and claims that because they wrongly believe they came up with the idea first, they are owed payment for that idea from those who follow and use that idea forever. Lucas borrowed from culture and he's held-on tightly to the results. However, for the most part, he's been pretty good about sharing his work with others, and he's been pretty good about recognizing those who borrow from him in novel and fun ways (see the "George Lucas Select Awards", where Lucas picks the fan videos he and the public enjoyed,) and for the most part, he hasn't sued them or forced them to stop producing their work.
While I disagree with most directors who say that the public needs the super-dooper special effects in order to pack the theater, I do agree that we the public tend to need more drawn out stories and more advanced plots than what flew in the early days of movies and TV. Back then a guy with no story or plot and no dialog could pack the theaters with a couple pratfalls and goofy facial expressions. Do that now and you're not likely to get the first level of funding needed to make the movie, and if you manage to do that, you aren't going to make it back when you release it.
There are no patent rights in space. Patents are a purely earth based concept.
In order to build the Death Star, at least some of the work will need to be done on Earth. At least initially, until we get some sort of large space station in place to fabricate parts in space. (Most of the money, if not all of it, spent on space is spent here on Earth.)
There are a lot of patents on space bound equipment. NASA owns quite a few, but there are private corporations that own patents on stuff like engines and actuators.
People break the speed limit. Better to drop speed limits.
Your point? Some places they have done just this.
The problem is, you are equating a civil law with debatable consequences to a criminal law based on saving people's lives. There are many, myself included, who believe that there are many cases where copyright actually hinders and hurts.
/epic facepalm
I agree. You probably should think before posting so you don't do it again.
until the earth is ended, infringement will continue as ever.
Which is the main point of what the grand-grand-grand-poster was saying. It is human nature to copy and remix...it is how we learn, adapt, and grow. People will continue to do it regardless to how many laws make it illegal to do so. Until the entertainment industry and politicians get that through their heads, we'll have the current situation we are in.
The only fix to this problem is to drop copyright and fix the entertainment industries' business model. Will people still pay for entertainment? They always have in the past...why should we think they will change? Even before copyright existed, people paid for entertainment. Figuring how to work within human nature to assure that folks still get paid is what the politicians should be focusing on.
YOU get it! These other guys are saying surveilance is bad because "benign" violations will be caught and prosecuted, but YOU get it - violating an invalid law leads to prosecution that demonstrates the invalidity and rectifies the problem!
It worked so well for Alan Turing. I mean, well, it rectified the problem 50+ after he was convicted and about as long since he took his own life, as a direct result of being convicted of an invalid law. And it has worked so well for copyright cases too. Sorry, but the world isn't black and white, and there are a lot of people destroyed as the result of invalid laws.
I agree that good people tend to be abused by invalid laws before they are overturned in most cases, but there are other ways to fix the law without resorting to such atrocities. Turning the world into a police state will not likely bring about the change you think it will...except, maybe, in kicking off a world wide change of government, which is not likely to be any better.
my point is that until guns are used to police day to day infingement it will continue as ever.
Guns are currently used to police other crimes on a regular basis, yet the crimes still exist. The criminals either figure out how to avoid the guns, work at maximizing profit/mayhem until the guns show up, or have very short careers due to their own stupidity.
Even if guns were used to protect the industry, people would still continue to infringe. Many would still infringe because of the same reasons they currently infringe. What would change, however, is that it would push the revolt of the public against those in power to the extreme, since most people view copyright as something that is overall, very good, but something that has become corrupted by those in power to maintain their power over things they didn't have power over before. The first person shot for downloading Bieber from a friend would likely cause such an outrage that the politicians and their friends in the entertainment industry would likely distance themselves so quickly from each other that they would break fundamental laws of physics.
Yes, they don't cut off, but throttle the traffic over the limit. However it's still a cap, though a softer one. In essence it's as pointless as the others.
Certainly don't disagree with you. It is pointless, but it isn't the same as with AT&T where you get a surprise bill for $342.98 in the mail because you used more than your 4GB limit and they charged you $0.125/MB beyond your cap.
Well, there's the nice theory—and then there's what actually happens in California when someone walks away from a deputy.
It isn't a theory, it is the law, and I suspect Mr. Martinez will be a lot richer walking away with a portion of our tax money when this is over.
Do police officers make mistakes? Yes. Doesn't make it right. However, in the story above, unlike this situation where a deputy in question made a mistake which will likely get him fired or put on probation, the Police Chief is actually saying that he will break a few constitutional amendments and likely overstep his legal bounds in the name of keeping people safe. Totally different situation.
I don't see how that will help anything, the previous ban didn't stop the columbine massacre.
It won't. John is dead on...it isn't how the gun looks, it is its purpose, and that is where any ban falls short. If I buy a receiver for an AR-15, and deck it out to the point it looks like an evil-black-rifle, and don't fit within the stupid definitions above, I am good. The law only cares about how it looks.
The Grand-Poster said that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. I was just pointing out that an AR-15 could be, given the legal definition of an assault rifle. If I have an AR-15 with a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine with more than 10 bullets, it is an assault rifle in California, even though it may not be elsewhere.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
The current discussion Federally is to introduce the law again, using California's definition, which is a rifle with one of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
Depending on the AR-15 model and the definition, they may very well fall into the definition.
You just watch. Next thing you know... zombie infection. Either that or an alien invasion. Time to clean that shotgun and stock up on shells!
Well, according what I heard on the History Channel, the end-of-the-world happens this evening at 6pm, along time-zones. So I expect the guys in New Zealand already had the zombie infection outbreak and it is working its way here now as we speak.
This is not entirely true, but close enough. However, cops can ask you for your name without any reason whatsoever -- just the same as I or any other person can do. The question is whether or not you are legally obligated to give it to them. That is the bit that should be made explicit.
Unless they tell you that you can't leave...you are not obligated to tell them anything (and shouldn't, unless you want to just say "hi" and keep walking.) They must tell you if you are not allowed to leave, and at that point they must have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, are in the process of committing a crime, or are planning to commit one in the immediate future. That suspicion must be based on things other than the skin color, age, etc., and in this case, looking down the barrel of a gun while walking your dog (which would not normally be suspicious, except the looking down a barrel of a gun part.) Anything else is unlawful detention.
Being chatted up by the cops is no fun at all, but I would also have a problem with telling cops that they cannot talk with people without having a specific reason.
A police officer stopping to say "Hi, How are things going?" is a lot different to "What the f*ck are you doing here?" In the former, I would just say "fine, thanks for asking" and keep walking. Cops are humans too, and most cops like talking with people just to get a feel of the land. If a police officer said the later, I'd be really concerned about calling my lawyer before answering that question. The former should be legal, the later is obviously a violation of your civil rights and there should be at a minimum reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good (and not just because your skin is darker or you have a different surname than most of the folks in the neighborhood.)
I do think the cops should be required to specify the nature of the the interaction they're initiating: is it a casual chat? Are they detaining you? Arresting you? These distinctions are critically important. You have the right to (and absolutely should) ask the officer what the status of the interaction is, but talking with the police is scary and intimidating for most people and they're too afraid to ask.
Above all, you should know that it is your right to not talk to a police officer at all if you don't need to. At least in California, they must tell you if you are being detained or arrested before doing so. If you don't respond and start walking away from them, they better have reasonable suspicion or probable cause before detaining or arresting you, and it can't just be because you choose not to talk to them.
I read your first paragraph.. and was wondering who in the world polices a theater while dressed as a character from Stargate SG-1? :)
I thought the same, though it would really be interesting to see Teal'c (Christopher Judge) walking down the isle at someone texting and looking disappointingly in their direction until they stop. A one two punch would be to have Chuck Norris standing behind them so that if Teal'c didn't get them to stop, Norris could remove their spinal cord for them.
T-Mobile also has data caps, though their plans are the best for their price.
T-Mobile and Sprint do not have data caps in the same way that Verizon and AT&T do. If you go over your allotted cap on T-Mobile or Sprint, they drop your speed, but you are still able to use the internet. I ran a hacker conference wireless off of T-Mobile, and went significantly over the cap that month, and they never cut me off or charged me more for that month.
I'd rather see Senator Wyden propose a bill which allows a free market of broadband competition and remove these goddamn monopolies.
I agree, but the only way I see this working is for a non-government, non-profit organization to take over the infrastructure and then charge (based on costs of infrastructure/maintenance,) a fee for all competitors to use the infrastructure. The problem with this is that the organization will not likely provide the upgrades to the network, and those who used taxpayer money to build the infrastructure in the first place will likely rebel at the NGO coming in and taking over "their" infrastructure.
We have to treat the network as an infrastructure item, like water pipes and power lines, and I doubt there will be much traction for that.
Yes, but it's strange that a hazing ritual rose up around hunting an animal that many "in the know" participants believe is not real when in fact it is real.
I wish I had known this at the time, so I could have educated them. Google/Wikipedia would have been so useful if we had it back when I was in scouting.
On the post: Was An Advertisement In Vogue The Inspiration For The Star Wars Opening Crawls?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He did. Ironically, he said he did so in order to allow others to build on his work.
They're definitely not very good about sharing with the public (which is ironic considering how many of their ideas come from literature in the public domain).
Which is what I am really concerned about. Lucas has been cool with Pink Five and with other Star Wars fanfilms, many of which have been far more creative. Disney hasn't. Time will tell, but I am expecting more of a Heinlein reaction than a Lucas reaction to playing in their playground.
On the post: Was An Advertisement In Vogue The Inspiration For The Star Wars Opening Crawls?
Re: What is and isn't copyrighted
IDEAS can't be copyrighted. Literary THEMES and TROPES can't be copyrighted.
I don't think Tim disagrees with this, nor do I. The problem is that authors DO tend to believe that their ideas CAN be copyrighted. See...
Sci-fi author sues Ubisoft over Assassin's Creed copyright infringement
Harry Potter Author Sued For Copyright Infringement!
You Can’t Copyright an Idea. I Know from Experience
Where do you draw the line? There are a number of fan films devoted to Star Wars which "live" in the Star Wars Universe, but yet draw very little if anything from the Star Wars movies themselves. Lucas has allowed them to live, but others have not. If I make a movie with a couple of ewoks (not that I have a habit of doing such a dreadful things,) I'm probably safe. But if I make a movie about a neo-fascist society building an army to take out an evil rodent race on another planet that attacks them with telephone poles, I suspect Heinlein's estate will be all over me in a heartbeat.
On the post: Was An Advertisement In Vogue The Inspiration For The Star Wars Opening Crawls?
Re: Re:
I believe it has too. Sure, a lot of it is rehashed over and over again, but in many ways stories that were made famous by the bard have been expanded to the point that we've seen a number of different possibilities for endings of Hamlet.
Of course, on its base level, every movie is built off of ideas that came before, so I don't have a problem with this, except when someone comes along and claims that because they wrongly believe they came up with the idea first, they are owed payment for that idea from those who follow and use that idea forever. Lucas borrowed from culture and he's held-on tightly to the results. However, for the most part, he's been pretty good about sharing his work with others, and he's been pretty good about recognizing those who borrow from him in novel and fun ways (see the "George Lucas Select Awards", where Lucas picks the fan videos he and the public enjoyed,) and for the most part, he hasn't sued them or forced them to stop producing their work.
While I disagree with most directors who say that the public needs the super-dooper special effects in order to pack the theater, I do agree that we the public tend to need more drawn out stories and more advanced plots than what flew in the early days of movies and TV. Back then a guy with no story or plot and no dialog could pack the theaters with a couple pratfalls and goofy facial expressions. Do that now and you're not likely to get the first level of funding needed to make the movie, and if you manage to do that, you aren't going to make it back when you release it.
On the post: Official White House Position: We're Not Building A Death Star
Re: Re: Copyright - For S&G fun
In order to build the Death Star, at least some of the work will need to be done on Earth. At least initially, until we get some sort of large space station in place to fabricate parts in space. (Most of the money, if not all of it, spent on space is spent here on Earth.)
There are a lot of patents on space bound equipment. NASA owns quite a few, but there are private corporations that own patents on stuff like engines and actuators.
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point? Some places they have done just this.
The problem is, you are equating a civil law with debatable consequences to a criminal law based on saving people's lives. There are many, myself included, who believe that there are many cases where copyright actually hinders and hurts.
/epic facepalm
I agree. You probably should think before posting so you don't do it again.
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is the main point of what the grand-grand-grand-poster was saying. It is human nature to copy and remix...it is how we learn, adapt, and grow. People will continue to do it regardless to how many laws make it illegal to do so. Until the entertainment industry and politicians get that through their heads, we'll have the current situation we are in.
The only fix to this problem is to drop copyright and fix the entertainment industries' business model. Will people still pay for entertainment? They always have in the past...why should we think they will change? Even before copyright existed, people paid for entertainment. Figuring how to work within human nature to assure that folks still get paid is what the politicians should be focusing on.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Civil Disobedience II
It worked so well for Alan Turing. I mean, well, it rectified the problem 50+ after he was convicted and about as long since he took his own life, as a direct result of being convicted of an invalid law. And it has worked so well for copyright cases too. Sorry, but the world isn't black and white, and there are a lot of people destroyed as the result of invalid laws.
I agree that good people tend to be abused by invalid laws before they are overturned in most cases, but there are other ways to fix the law without resorting to such atrocities. Turning the world into a police state will not likely bring about the change you think it will...except, maybe, in kicking off a world wide change of government, which is not likely to be any better.
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re: Re:
Guns are currently used to police other crimes on a regular basis, yet the crimes still exist. The criminals either figure out how to avoid the guns, work at maximizing profit/mayhem until the guns show up, or have very short careers due to their own stupidity.
Even if guns were used to protect the industry, people would still continue to infringe. Many would still infringe because of the same reasons they currently infringe. What would change, however, is that it would push the revolt of the public against those in power to the extreme, since most people view copyright as something that is overall, very good, but something that has become corrupted by those in power to maintain their power over things they didn't have power over before. The first person shot for downloading Bieber from a friend would likely cause such an outrage that the politicians and their friends in the entertainment industry would likely distance themselves so quickly from each other that they would break fundamental laws of physics.
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Certainly don't disagree with you. It is pointless, but it isn't the same as with AT&T where you get a surprise bill for $342.98 in the mail because you used more than your 4GB limit and they charged you $0.125/MB beyond your cap.
On the post: Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
It isn't a theory, it is the law, and I suspect Mr. Martinez will be a lot richer walking away with a portion of our tax money when this is over.
Do police officers make mistakes? Yes. Doesn't make it right. However, in the story above, unlike this situation where a deputy in question made a mistake which will likely get him fired or put on probation, the Police Chief is actually saying that he will break a few constitutional amendments and likely overstep his legal bounds in the name of keeping people safe. Totally different situation.
On the post: Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
Re: Re: Re: Fact Check
It won't. John is dead on...it isn't how the gun looks, it is its purpose, and that is where any ban falls short. If I buy a receiver for an AR-15, and deck it out to the point it looks like an evil-black-rifle, and don't fit within the stupid definitions above, I am good. The law only cares about how it looks.
The Grand-Poster said that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. I was just pointing out that an AR-15 could be, given the legal definition of an assault rifle. If I have an AR-15 with a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine with more than 10 bullets, it is an assault rifle in California, even though it may not be elsewhere.
On the post: Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
Re: Fact Check
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004, defined an assault weapon as thus:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
The current discussion Federally is to introduce the law again, using California's definition, which is a rifle with one of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
Depending on the AR-15 model and the definition, they may very well fall into the definition.
On the post: Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
Re: Re:
Well, according what I heard on the History Channel, the end-of-the-world happens this evening at 6pm, along time-zones. So I expect the guys in New Zealand already had the zombie infection outbreak and it is working its way here now as we speak.
On the post: Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
Unless they tell you that you can't leave...you are not obligated to tell them anything (and shouldn't, unless you want to just say "hi" and keep walking.) They must tell you if you are not allowed to leave, and at that point they must have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, are in the process of committing a crime, or are planning to commit one in the immediate future. That suspicion must be based on things other than the skin color, age, etc., and in this case, looking down the barrel of a gun while walking your dog (which would not normally be suspicious, except the looking down a barrel of a gun part.) Anything else is unlawful detention.
On the post: Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove it
A police officer stopping to say "Hi, How are things going?" is a lot different to "What the f*ck are you doing here?" In the former, I would just say "fine, thanks for asking" and keep walking. Cops are humans too, and most cops like talking with people just to get a feel of the land. If a police officer said the later, I'd be really concerned about calling my lawyer before answering that question. The former should be legal, the later is obviously a violation of your civil rights and there should be at a minimum reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good (and not just because your skin is darker or you have a different surname than most of the folks in the neighborhood.)
I do think the cops should be required to specify the nature of the the interaction they're initiating: is it a casual chat? Are they detaining you? Arresting you? These distinctions are critically important. You have the right to (and absolutely should) ask the officer what the status of the interaction is, but talking with the police is scary and intimidating for most people and they're too afraid to ask.
Above all, you should know that it is your right to not talk to a police officer at all if you don't need to. At least in California, they must tell you if you are being detained or arrested before doing so. If you don't respond and start walking away from them, they better have reasonable suspicion or probable cause before detaining or arresting you, and it can't just be because you choose not to talk to them.
On the post: Rather Than Punishing Moviegoing Texters, Why Not Provide Incentives For Them To Put Down Their Phones?
Re: Actually...
Don't go for it man, the cake is a lie.
Seriously though, I'd much rather go for the cake. The problem is when people figure out how to get the cake without having to clean that up.
On the post: Rather Than Punishing Moviegoing Texters, Why Not Provide Incentives For Them To Put Down Their Phones?
Re: Re:
I thought the same, though it would really be interesting to see Teal'c (Christopher Judge) walking down the isle at someone texting and looking disappointingly in their direction until they stop. A one two punch would be to have Chuck Norris standing behind them so that if Teal'c didn't get them to stop, Norris could remove their spinal cord for them.
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps
Re: Re: Re:
T-Mobile and Sprint do not have data caps in the same way that Verizon and AT&T do. If you go over your allotted cap on T-Mobile or Sprint, they drop your speed, but you are still able to use the internet. I ran a hacker conference wireless off of T-Mobile, and went significantly over the cap that month, and they never cut me off or charged me more for that month.
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps
Re:
I agree, but the only way I see this working is for a non-government, non-profit organization to take over the infrastructure and then charge (based on costs of infrastructure/maintenance,) a fee for all competitors to use the infrastructure. The problem with this is that the organization will not likely provide the upgrades to the network, and those who used taxpayer money to build the infrastructure in the first place will likely rebel at the NGO coming in and taking over "their" infrastructure.
We have to treat the network as an infrastructure item, like water pipes and power lines, and I doubt there will be much traction for that.
On the post: IP Diplomat Sob Story: It's Hard To Push The US Agenda When The World Listens To Reason
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Torture Experts...
I wish I had known this at the time, so I could have educated them. Google/Wikipedia would have been so useful if we had it back when I was in scouting.
Next >>