On 07/12/09 22:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Even the Associated Press is asserting their copyright over *news*
> materials.  It's ridiculous.

	That's different, and perhaps misleading. While I agree the AP is being 
unreasonable in what they're saying, they're complaining about the 
copyright of the content, not of the events. Someone took the trouble to 
draft that article, etc.

-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 20:59, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I missed it. I thought you wrote "smoke or water". Never heard of
>> Smoke on the Water or Deep Purple.
>
> It's one of the more famous and enduring songs from that time period,
> particularly the opening notes. Now you have some american culture in
> you, assuming you listened to the song. :-)

	It's an old song. Who cares about stuff more than 20 years old :D

	Just listened to the beginning music on Youtube. Definitely heard it 
before, just didn't know the name.

-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 22:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:26:22 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> Why would it then be any more
>> disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well?
>
> Actually, there are editions that are under copyright at the moment.
> Just go to your local music store and buy a score - you'll see that there
> is in fact a copyright notice.

	But is that a copyright of the printed form, or of the actual music 
represented by the score? Perhaps they're just saying that you can't 
simply photocopy and reproduce, but it's OK for you to rewrite it yourself.

-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 22:23, Darren New wrote:
> You might be using "reward" in a looser sense, simply meaning "pay" or
> "reimburse" or "benefit" or something.

	I meant it as in benefit. Kind of forgot that reward was not that 
flexible a word.

>> Unless you're talking about free software...
>
> I'm not sure that free software within the discussion of modified
> copyrights makes sense. If it's already free, why prevent copying?

	Stuff like the GPL. To put conditions on its usage.


-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 07/12/09 11:13, Darren New wrote:
>>> professional artists out of work. You'd also have artists unable to
>>> leave an inheritance of art to their children.
>>
>>     Not quite the topic at hand, but if the artists make money on 
>> their work, the children will get that inheritance.
> 
> And if the artist doesn't sell it before he dies, the kids get nothing.

Unless the artist takes out an insurance policy.

In any event, work-for-hire agreements would be replaced by agreements 
under which the payee got the first option for licensing.  And they 
could take out an insurance policy on the artist, too.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Were those mods technically illegal? Valve hadn't given permission in 
> general to make mods?

  I think that if Valve had wanted, they could have prohibited all mods of
their game. It's not unprecedent.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 07/12/09 22:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Even the Associated Press is asserting their copyright over *news*
> > materials.  It's ridiculous.

>         That's different, and perhaps misleading. While I agree the AP is being 
> unreasonable in what they're saying, they're complaining about the 
> copyright of the content, not of the events. Someone took the trouble to 
> draft that article, etc.

  You can't copy a news article written by someone else verbatim. However,
you can certainly write your own article in your own words describing the
same event. You can even use short verbatim citations from the original
article if you want (as long as you clearly mark them as such).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It's one of the more famous and enduring songs from that time period, 
> particularly the opening notes.  Now you have some american culture in you, 
> assuming you listened to the song. :-)

  Except that Deep Purple is a British band...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 07:09, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          Were those mods technically illegal? Valve hadn't given permission in
>> general to make mods?
>
>    I think that if Valve had wanted, they could have prohibited all mods of
> their game. It's not unprecedent.

	Yes, but what I'm asking is did they give explicit permission before 
those mods were released, or did they simply accept them after the fact?

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 07:14, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>> On 07/12/09 22:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Even the Associated Press is asserting their copyright over *news*
>>> materials.  It's ridiculous.
>
>>          That's different, and perhaps misleading. While I agree the AP is being
>> unreasonable in what they're saying, they're complaining about the
>> copyright of the content, not of the events. Someone took the trouble to
>> draft that article, etc.
>
>    You can't copy a news article written by someone else verbatim. However,
> you can certainly write your own article in your own words describing the
> same event. You can even use short verbatim citations from the original
> article if you want (as long as you clearly mark them as such).

	Yes, and AP isn't going after people for doing the former (writing in 
own words). They were saying others shouldn't link to their content or 
post extracts (your second point), claiming that fair use doesn't apply.

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message