Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> 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?

  I don't know, but given that modding of FPS games is quite hard without
explicit support from the game, I'd say they supported modding from the
start (similarly to how, for example, Id Software has always done).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> They were saying others shouldn't link to their content or 
> post extracts (your second point), claiming that fair use doesn't apply.

  Prohibiting deep-linking of articles is a curious internet phenomenon.
Many companies have this kind of prohibition in their license agreement
(which you "accept" by simply going to their website, even if you never
actually read it).

  The funny thing is that deep-linking cannot be legally prohibited. There's
no legal basis, and a lawsuit on the issue would never hold in court in any
country I know of.

  In Finland in particular, it has been *officially* and *explicitly* stated
that deep-linking is legal and prohibiting it has no legal basis. Yet there
are tons of Finnish company websites out there with the prohibition in their
license agreement.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>>          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?
> 
>   I don't know, but given that modding of FPS games is quite hard without
> explicit support from the game, I'd say they supported modding from the
> start (similarly to how, for example, Id Software has always done).

As I understand it, currently if you purchase any Valve game powered by 
the Source engine, you can download the Source Developer's Kit for free 
and play around with it. (What I don't know, however, is what if 
anything you're allowed to do with the content you generate. But for 
example, every major update to Team Fortress II includes at least one 
user-produced map...)

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:51:14 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> 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.

I know that photocopying it is a violation of the copyright, but yeah, I 
think you could probably transcribe it yourself.  That's kinda hard to do 
without another score, though, so I'm not quite sure what the difference 
technically would be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:47:18 -0500, Neeum Zawan 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.

Yes, I know that's the difference; the problem is that if I write a news 
story that uses phrasing similar to the AP, I could get into trouble, 
even if my reporting is completely independent.

If they quote a source and I use (I think it is) more than 20 words from 
the quotes, that puts me in violation of AP's copyright, even though they 
can't legally assert copyright on someone else's quotes.  (IOW, they sue 
me, or threaten to, and I have to prove that they can't - and if I can't 
afford to, then *I* end up paying for their incorrect assertion of 
copyright).

It's not dissimilar to the way DMCA is applied - if a DMCA takedown 
request is issued, you have to comply or prove that your content isn't 
infringing.

In both cases:  So much for the presumption of innocence.

Jim

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> In any event, work-for-hire agreements would be replaced by agreements 
> under which the payee got the first option for licensing.

Yet someone complained about patents, and that's 100% exactly how patents 
work, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I don't know, but given that modding of FPS games is quite hard without
> explicit support from the game, 

Most of the time it's a PITA even with support from the game. I can't 
believe how craptastic most level editors are. I can understand why everyone 
uses Unreal.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The funny thing is that deep-linking cannot be legally prohibited. 

There was actually a lawsuit in the USA over this, with someone deep-linking 
to Ticketmaster's concert sale pages without going thru the top page. The 
judge decided that since the concert information was "fact", having the 
program scrape that information wasn't copyright violation, in part because 
the program held onto the scraped page only long enough to extract the 
factual information.  Plus, in presenting the link into ticketmaster, the 
originating site made it clear it was a link to an external site and didn't 
try to look like part of ticketmaster, so there was no trademark or 
copyright problem with that.

That's one of the few bits that actually *have* set a precedent here.

>   In Finland in particular, it has been *officially* and *explicitly* stated
> that deep-linking is legal and prohibiting it has no legal basis. Yet there
> are tons of Finnish company websites out there with the prohibition in their
> license agreement.

But if you agree not to do it, you're violating other laws, like breach of 
content. (Assuming that the click-through license agreement can be enforced.)

That's another of those funky copyright questions: Who is doing the 
"copying" if it's all 100% automated. If I post something to a newsgroup and 
it gets distributed and google news picks it up and then you look at it, who 
made "the copy"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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...

Great! Two cultures for the price of one! ;-)

Seriously, thanks for the correction.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.

Then I think we're agreeing.

>>> 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.

Sure. My point was more philosophical. I understand why FSF wants to put 
conditions on its usage. My question was more "why should the government 
support that", just like our question has been "why should the government 
support copyright at all?"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   In Finland in particular, it has been *officially* and *explicitly* stated
> > that deep-linking is legal and prohibiting it has no legal basis. Yet there
> > are tons of Finnish company websites out there with the prohibition in their
> > license agreement.

> But if you agree not to do it, you're violating other laws, like breach of 
> content. (Assuming that the click-through license agreement can be enforced.)

  I don't know how it is in the US, but at least here contracts cannot
forbid things which are explicitly stated as basic rights by law. If a
contract forbids such a thing, that part of the contract is invalid and
does not hold up in court. This even if you specifically agree and sign
the contract. A contract never surpasses the law, no matter how much you
"agree" with it.

  This fact causes a curious situation in particular with computer programs.
Finnish law explicitly states that creating backup copies of computer
programs is a basic right, and moreover it explicitly says that any part
of the program's license agreement which prohibits backupping is
non-enforceable.

  But then, what happens with computer programs with copy protection?
In other words, those which even if you try to copy them, won't work from
the copy. They are technically speaking breaking Finnish law by disallowing
a basic right. However, I have never heard this tested on court.

> That's another of those funky copyright questions: Who is doing the 
> "copying" if it's all 100% automated. If I post something to a newsgroup and 
> it gets distributed and google news picks it up and then you look at it, who 
> made "the copy"?

  Interpretation of the law on that regard is fuzzy here as well. Not even
the police (who are supposed to uphold the law) is completely sure how to
interpret it properly.

  For example the recent (much protested) internet censorship law here does
not, AFAIK, specifically give exemptions to search engines such as google.
However, when the question was brought up, the police interpreted that
google was not infringing the law (and they used hilariously inexact and
incorrect terminology for their decision).

  The new Finnish copyright law is even more mangled. Not even the people
who wrote it seem to fully understand it. Some high-ranked police official
even commented publicly that laws that cannot be unambiguously interpreted
and enforced make no sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 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...

> Great! Two cultures for the price of one! ;-)

> Seriously, thanks for the correction.

  I wonder if this was a case of Eagleland Osmosis in reverse... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I don't know how it is in the US, but at least here contracts cannot
> forbid things which are explicitly stated as basic rights by law.

Same here - you cannot, for example, contractually agree to sell your 
organs. But there's also a bunch of things that the law states how it works, 
and you're allowed to waive those rights. That's kind of what I was talking 
about.

For example, I have copyright on anything I write, but I can sign a contract 
to sell that copyright to you.

There are even cases where we passed laws like "if you sign a waiver, and 
then later find out something that wasn't disclosed, the waiver doesn't 
cover that."  What happened?  Now all the contracts just include a clause 
that says "if you sign this waiver, and you later find something the waiver 
doesn't cover, you agree to waive that too."  Kind of not too useful once 
the lawyers figure out how to get around it.

> moreover it explicitly says that any part
> of the program's license agreement which prohibits backupping is
> non-enforceable.

That's what we would need to have in the laws here. It is complicated, of 
course, by having way too many jurisdictions.

>   The new Finnish copyright law is even more mangled. Not even the people
> who wrote it seem to fully understand it. Some high-ranked police official
> even commented publicly that laws that cannot be unambiguously interpreted
> and enforced make no sense.

They're unconstitutional here, but it's a fairly hard battle to win.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I wonder if this was a case of Eagleland Osmosis in reverse... :P

I think a lot of the bands from that time period in America had lots of 
british performers in them. Rock and roll kinda really took off here with 
the beatles, so it makes sense.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 13-7-2009 18:36, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   I wonder if this was a case of Eagleland Osmosis in reverse... :P
> 
> I think a lot of the bands from that time period in America had lots of 
> british performers in them. Rock and roll kinda really took off here 
> with the beatles, so it makes sense.
> 
Wasn't Elvis before the beatles?

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 10:12, Warp wrote:
>    In Finland in particular, it has been *officially* and *explicitly* stated
> that deep-linking is legal and prohibiting it has no legal basis. Yet there
> are tons of Finnish company websites out there with the prohibition in their
> license agreement.

	What about where I link to an image, and make it appear as if it is on 
my site?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 10:51, Darren New wrote:
> That's another of those funky copyright questions: Who is doing the
> "copying" if it's all 100% automated. If I post something to a newsgroup
> and it gets distributed and google news picks it up and then you look at
> it, who made "the copy"?

	Well, if you post on a public newsgroup, is there anything in the law 
that states what rights you have?

	If I were to write a letter to the editor of a paper newspaper, who has 
the rights? I'm assuming the newspaper does, but am not sure. If that's 
the case, I can see where posting to a public forum would grant the 
rights to the forum owners, who may state up front that anything posted 
there is in the public domain.

	Certainly, when Google Groups decided to hide email addresses in their 
archives, a lot of people were upset, saying that Google violated their 
rights by "modifying" their posts. To an extent, I wish they hadn't done 
it either, as it is often easier to search for my and other people's 
posts by searching for their email addresses, rather than their names.

	I had a thought the other day. You can include a header in your posts 
that inform archivers like Google to delete the post after n days. I 
believe Google complies. I don't know if it's binding, though.

	While I strongly value privacy, (possibly more than most), I'm not sure 
I like that header. It may give a false sense of privacy (if it's not 
legally enforceable). But even more pertinently, I feel it can be 
misused (in a manner of speaking). Someone can post some highly 
inflammatory material (politics, religion, etc). And he'll argue back 
and forth. The argument may get heated, but his posts will vanish from 
Google Groups in a month, whereas all of those who responded to him will 
likely be preserved.

	Then, when one of those "others" apply for a job, the potential 
employers will find his posts in that thread, but may not be able to see 
what he replied to. He may look bad due to his comments, because of the 
lack of context.

	So I was thinking: What if I made a script that would detect any 
messages with those headers. And what if any message I reply to (or its 
ancestors in the tree) has such a header (likewise for all descendants 
of my messages). The script would then reply to those messages, simply 
quote the whole thing, and post it back to the server.

	Other than people getting irritated, how much trouble would I get into?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 11:36, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> I wonder if this was a case of Eagleland Osmosis in reverse... :P
>
> I think a lot of the bands from that time period in America had lots of
> british performers in them. Rock and roll kinda really took off here
> with the beatles, so it makes sense.

	I think I found a Wikipedia page for British songs that topped the US 
charts. They used to be quite common, but began petering out in the 
90's. Finally, there was an eight year period before the next one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_by_British_artists_which_reached_number-one_on_the_Hot_100_%28USA%29

	Are the cultures diverging? British music becoming crappier? US 
becoming more insular? All of the above?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 10:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
> If they quote a source and I use (I think it is) more than 20 words from
> the quotes, that puts me in violation of AP's copyright, even though they

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1301303&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=28683769


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


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

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Well, if you post on a public newsgroup, is there anything in the 
> law that states what rights you have?

Well, copyright, I'd assume. :-)

>     If I were to write a letter to the editor of a paper newspaper, who 
> has the rights? I'm assuming the newspaper does, but am not sure.

I'm not sure. That brings up a whole tangle of other stuff, including 
whether you asked them to publish it, whether there's specific laws that 
give the recipient property rights in mail they receive (yes, but maybe not 
license to reproduce), and so on.

There are laws that specifically allow (for example) web proxies to hold on 
to copies of pages, but it requires no change in form or content. Google 
often sites this as their permission, but even highlighting your search 
terms is changing form and content.


>     I had a thought the other day. You can include a header in your 
> posts that inform archivers like Google to delete the post after n days. 
> I believe Google complies. I don't know if it's binding, though.

Sure. But copyright is something everyone has to obey, regardless of whether 
I tell them in advance or not.

>     Other than people getting irritated, how much trouble would I get into?

That's what I'm saying. I have no idea.  I would think if google can take a 
post I posted to a local server here and publish it off their machines long 
after every copy *I* made was deleted, it would be hard to argue you were 
doing anything google wasn't.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 21:13, Darren New wrote:
>> I had a thought the other day. You can include a header in your posts
>> that inform archivers like Google to delete the post after n days. I
>> believe Google complies. I don't know if it's binding, though.
>
> Sure. But copyright is something everyone has to obey, regardless of
> whether I tell them in advance or not.

	Yes, but would it be allowed for the people who run the POV-Ray 
newsgroups to, say, state that if someone posts on it, then the authors 
cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?

	Or if that's too much, perhaps to simply state that by posting here, 
the authors are allowing their posts to be entered into the public domain.

>> Other than people getting irritated, how much trouble would I get into?
>
> That's what I'm saying. I have no idea. I would think if google can take
> a post I posted to a local server here and publish it off their machines
> long after every copy *I* made was deleted, it would be hard to argue
> you were doing anything google wasn't.

	Yes, but Google respects the headers that state that a posting should 
be deleted.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

You post on a newsgroup with the header suggesting that your message 
should not be archived beyond 30 days.

I notice this, and immediately reply to it, quoting your whole message, 
to ensure that your message *will* stay on Google's public archives 
indefinitely.

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Yes, but would it be allowed for the people who run the POV-Ray 
> newsgroups to, say, state that if someone posts on it, then the authors 
> cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that anything the original author 
sends to a particular place belongs to the owner of that place.  That's what 
newspapers do with letters to the editor (at least those supposedly going 
into the "letters to the editor" column).

That's not what google does, tho.

>> That's what I'm saying. I have no idea. I would think if google can take
>> a post I posted to a local server here and publish it off their machines
>> long after every copy *I* made was deleted, it would be hard to argue
>> you were doing anything google wasn't.
> 
>     Yes, but Google respects the headers that state that a posting 
> should be deleted.

I understood what you're saying. I'm saying the law doesn't say anything 
about me having to put headers on my files to have my copyright respected.

> You post on a newsgroup with the header suggesting that your message 
> should not be archived beyond 30 days.
> 
> I notice this, and immediately reply to it, quoting your whole message, 
> to ensure that your message *will* stay on Google's public archives 
> indefinitely.

Yes, I understood that. I was talking about google (say) taking posts off 
the pov-ray servers and serving them to the entire world, including those 
who don't connect to the pov-ray server.

In your case, I think there would be a big argument over the implied license 
given to google and to google's other users. Certainly if google has a right 
to serve the messages to you, you have a right to make a copy for your own 
use. It's messy, but I don't think the inclusion of headers is going to 
change much.

You can already try the experiment. Post something on google's servers, and 
in the body say "I hereby license this for only 10 days for google's 
servers, after which license to reproduce this is revoked." Good luck 
getting google to follow that, altho legally it's likely the same as the 
headers.  The only difference would be if you actively agreed to google's 
terms and they described how you're giving them a perpetual license. But 
since google scrapes stuff from all over, you don't have to agree with 
google's terms to get google copying your copyrighted work.

There's nothing in the copyright laws requiring a robots.txt file in order 
to maintain your copyrights, is what I'm saying. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:37:52 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 07/13/09 10:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If they quote a source and I use (I think it is) more than 20 words
>> from the quotes, that puts me in violation of AP's copyright, even
>> though they
> 
> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?
sid=1301303&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=28683769

LOL, good comment...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:13:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>>     If I were to write a letter to the editor of a paper newspaper, who
>> has the rights? I'm assuming the newspaper does, but am not sure.
> 
> I'm not sure. That brings up a whole tangle of other stuff, including
> whether you asked them to publish it, whether there's specific laws that
> give the recipient property rights in mail they receive (yes, but maybe
> not license to reproduce), and so on.

There's usually a blurb in the "Letters" section of any newspaper that 
says "by sending us a letter, you agree that we may modify it for space 
purposes and you agree that we may print it" or something to that effect.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?

Oh, and newsgroups don't have owners. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Apparently, now US patents either have to be about how to build 
> something ("transforming one thing into another") or about a specific 
> machine (excluding that which you can build on a general purpose computer).

So, does this rule out software patents?

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Well, which is why I'm not advocating eradicating copyright, but 
> merely limiting it. How many movies or pieces of software do you know of 
> that took over 20 years to produce a profit?

http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/13/man-claims-he-got-lost-first/

There's another example. You don't want copyright so short that it's cheaper 
to just outwait it than to pay the copyright.

This happened with patents on loading coils and fiber optics, both of which 
waited 20 years to get incorporated into the phone systems, for example.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Apparently, now US patents either have to be about how to build 
>> something ("transforming one thing into another") or about a specific 
>> machine (excluding that which you can build on a general purpose 
>> computer).
> 
> So, does this rule out software patents?

Define "software patent".  I would think so, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 07/13/09 10:12, Warp wrote:
> >    In Finland in particular, it has been *officially* and *explicitly* stated
> > that deep-linking is legal and prohibiting it has no legal basis. Yet there
> > are tons of Finnish company websites out there with the prohibition in their
> > license agreement.

>         What about where I link to an image, and make it appear as if it is on 
> my site?

  Are you claiming authorship or ownership of the image? That's a different
law.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> This happened with patents on loading coils and fiber optics, both of which 
> waited 20 years to get incorporated into the phone systems, for example.

  Good thing it was 20 years, then, and not eg. 50, or else we wouldn't
have cellphones today. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/14/09 00:12, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?
>
> Oh, and newsgroups don't have owners. :-)

	These ones do, don't they?

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/14/09 07:17, Warp wrote:
>>          What about where I link to an image, and make it appear as if it is on
>> my site?
>
>    Are you claiming authorship or ownership of the image? That's a different
> law.

	Some may see it as my claiming ownership. To any viewer who does not 
examine the source, it will be part of my web site.

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.


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

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/14/09 00:12, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?
>>
>> Oh, and newsgroups don't have owners. :-)
> 
>     These ones do, don't they?

I suppose in some sense, yes. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/14/09 07:17, Warp wrote:
>>>          What about where I link to an image, and make it appear as 
>>> if it is on
>>> my site?
>>
>>    Are you claiming authorship or ownership of the image? That's a 
>> different
>> law.
> 
>     Some may see it as my claiming ownership. To any viewer who does not 
> examine the source, it will be part of my web site.

In the USA, you can get into copyright violation for that. You've 
essentially copied the image on the hosting site and put it on yours.

It's weird, because copyright isn't about technology, but about the behavior 
of people.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> This happened with patents on loading coils and fiber optics, both of which 
>> waited 20 years to get incorporated into the phone systems, for example.
> 
>   Good thing it was 20 years, then, and not eg. 50, or else we wouldn't
> have cellphones today. ;)

Exactly!

Actually, cell phones have been around for something like 50 years, and 
mobile phones for close to 100.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/14/09 11:29, Darren New wrote:
> In the USA, you can get into copyright violation for that. You've
> essentially copied the image on the hosting site and put it on yours.

	You mean I've "effectively" done it, or to be even more precise, I've 
"appeared" to do it.

	Because technically, I haven't. It's on his site, and not on my server. 
And I'm exploiting his bandwidth, but that's a different issue. It's 
similar to me making a frame on my site, and having a different site 
appear in it (which lots of well known web sites do all the time - they 
probably have some disclaimer, though).

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/14/09 11:29, Darren New wrote:
>> In the USA, you can get into copyright violation for that. You've
>> essentially copied the image on the hosting site and put it on yours.
> 
>     You mean I've "effectively" done it, or to be even more precise, 
> I've "appeared" to do it.
> 
>     Because technically, I haven't.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Copyright isn't about "technically". It's 
about people.  The judge looks at web site A, with a copyrighted image on 
it, and web site B, with the same image on it, and says "You copied the 
image."  You might be able to argue about it, but that's how the law appears 
to be working here.

You took the image, you put it on your site. That the bits are streaming 
from someone else's machine doesn't mean much, in US copyright law at least.

Just like when I put a file up on my server to be shared with the world, I'm 
not violating copyright. You're violating copyright by downloading it. (I'm 
guilty of contributing to your infringement, but not infringing myself.)

That's why I say copyright law has to change in the face of digital 
automated reproduction.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> In any event, work-for-hire agreements would be replaced by agreements 
>> under which the payee got the first option for licensing.
> 
> Yet someone complained about patents, and that's 100% exactly how 
> patents work, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

Under the current rules, the IP belongs to the employer for the life of 
the IP.  Following the US Constitution would make this arrangement 
unenforceable, because the law could recognize only the creator's 
ownership, and nobody else's.

Granted, the employer could require lifetime licensing as a condition of 
employment, but at least if the employer goes bankrupt, the creator 
would retain the right to his work, instead of the IP going to some 
third party.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a5b603e@news.povray.org...
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>   This fact causes a curious situation in particular with computer
programs.
> Finnish law explicitly states that creating backup copies of computer
> programs is a basic right, and moreover it explicitly says that any part
> of the program's license agreement which prohibits backupping is
> non-enforceable.
>
>   But then, what happens with computer programs with copy protection?
> In other words, those which even if you try to copy them, won't work from
> the copy. They are technically speaking breaking Finnish law by
disallowing
> a basic right.

I'm not sure if that's the case. Does the Finnish law stipulate that the
application itself has to be written in a way so as to make sure that it
runs from backup copies? License agreement and program behaviour are
different, IMO. The latter may specifically need to be regulated by content
laws (such as prohibiting games from depicting Nazi material).

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> I'm not sure if that's the case. Does the Finnish law stipulate that the
> application itself has to be written in a way so as to make sure that it
> runs from backup copies? License agreement and program behaviour are
> different, IMO. The latter may specifically need to be regulated by content
> laws (such as prohibiting games from depicting Nazi material).

  If the backup is useless, then it's not a backup at all, rather obviously.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>> In any event, work-for-hire agreements would be replaced by 
>>> agreements under which the payee got the first option for licensing.
>>
>> Yet someone complained about patents, and that's 100% exactly how 
>> patents work, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be.
> 
> Under the current rules, the IP belongs to the employer for the life of 
> the IP.

What country are you talking about?  Patents are owned by the inventor and 
licensed to the employer. A corporation is *unable* to patent anything.

 > Following the US Constitution would make this arrangement
> unenforceable, because the law could recognize only the creator's 
> ownership, and nobody else's.

It already does.

> Granted, the employer could require lifetime licensing as a condition of 
> employment,

That's exactly how it works.

 > but at least if the employer goes bankrupt, the creator
> would retain the right to his work, instead of the IP going to some 
> third party.

Um, no. The license is an asset of the bankrupt company.


I take it you've never patented anything?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>>> In any event, work-for-hire agreements would be replaced by 
>>>> agreements under which the payee got the first option for licensing.
>>>
>>> Yet someone complained about patents, and that's 100% exactly how 
>>> patents work, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be.
>>
>> Under the current rules, the IP belongs to the employer for the life 
>> of the IP.
> 
> What country are you talking about?  Patents are owned by the inventor 
> and licensed to the employer. A corporation is *unable* to patent anything.
> 
>  > Following the US Constitution would make this arrangement
>> unenforceable, because the law could recognize only the creator's 
>> ownership, and nobody else's.
> 
> It already does.
> 
>> Granted, the employer could require lifetime licensing as a condition 
>> of employment,
> 
> That's exactly how it works.
> 
>  > but at least if the employer goes bankrupt, the creator
>> would retain the right to his work, instead of the IP going to some 
>> third party.
> 
> Um, no. The license is an asset of the bankrupt company.
> 
> 
> I take it you've never patented anything?
> 

He's confusing IP and "patent". IP is more like trademark. A company can 
"trademark", or otherwise maintain ownership, indefinitely, under 
current law, since it has to be explicitly given to public use to 
override this. Originally such "IP" protections only extended for a set 
number of years, which where actually less than patents, and one had to 
register them as something worth your time to protect. You could 
*extend* that protection, if you re-registered it within the allowed 
time frame. Probably the 60s-70s, or so, companies, including Disney, 
successfully argued that some things like Mickey Mouse, where IP that 
where central to their business, and, according to them, it was 
unreasonable to require them to re-register such things, to maintain 
their ownership and sole right to use them, especially after the 
original creator(s) where gone. Morons in the government, looking at 
business, rather than the end result of such a change, decided that, 
"Yes, this is a good point, so lets extend the rule for the life of the 
owner.", then later, "Well, if the owner is a company, lets extend it to 
the life of the company.", and then, "Well, if a company fails, then 
someone is likely to buy the assets, so lets extend the rights to 
include 'whom ever buys the IP'", even if the original creator of it, 
the company that they ran, and even the product itself no longer exist, 
in any legitimate sense. About 90% of everything "ever" produced by 
Hollywood in the early years is either lost, or sitting in some studies 
warehouse, rotting into oblivion, because of this change. The arguments 
by the companies range from "no one wants to see those old films", to, 
"we plan to remake them at some point, maybe", which contradicts the 
first contention entirely, and/or, "if it become a public work, we can't 
make more money off it, by re-releasing it, even though 200+ films rot 
past the point where we could possibly hope to do this at all every 
year, and we are re-releasing less than 0.001% of the ones we own, 
because, see excuse #1."

Imho, they should revoke this "a company has IP rights, and those rights 
are basically perpetual, and transferable.", and go back to having to 
***actually*** register the fracking stuff. You can't tell me it would 
be impossible for Disney to keep a list of everything they want to keep, 
  provide reasonable evidence that they are not just letting the 
material rot some place, and pass the list on to some agency once ever 
10 years, or something, saying, "This is the stuff you want to keep the 
IP going on." If they miss something, well then... too frakking bad. If 
it was ***so*** important, they wouldn't have missed it, and at least 
the public record of its existence is preserved, along with the ability 
to derive new works from it.

But, yeah. This issue is parallel too, but an entirely different issue 
than patents. Basically, if patent stupidities are the elephant in the 
living room, then IP issues are the rhino smashing plates in the kitchen 
and trying to trample the stove every time you light a burner to cook 
something derived from the few edible left overs in the fridge.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> He's confusing IP and "patent". IP is more like trademark.

Um, no. You're confusing "IP" with copyright.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> He's confusing IP and "patent". IP is more like trademark.
> 
> Um, no. You're confusing "IP" with copyright.
> 
Oh, give me a break. As used in most cases the two terms are 
interchangeable. Yes, you can, reasonably, extend the term to include 
both "products" and "patents", but that just means you have to them 
break the term up into two separate categories when talking about what 
the law says, since the same laws don't apply to both of them. In 
general, copyright is covered by near perpetual ownership. Patents.. do 
eventually run out, even if they have reached the point where they are 
sometimes over extended (or just shouldn't have been issued in the first 
place).

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> He's confusing IP and "patent". IP is more like trademark.
>>
>> Um, no. You're confusing "IP" with copyright.
>>
> Oh, give me a break. As used in most cases the two terms are 
> interchangeable. 

Not when you're trying to highlight the differences between copyright, 
trademark, and patent law, which are collectively known as "Intellectual 
property."

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aintellectual+property

 > Yes, you can, reasonably, extend the term to include
> both "products" 

Not products. Trademarks and patents and copyrights.

> general, copyright is covered by near perpetual ownership. 

Yes, at least in the USA.

> Patents.. do 
> eventually run out, even if they have reached the point where they are 
> sometimes over extended (or just shouldn't have been issued in the first 
> place).

Yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Imho, they should revoke this "a company has IP rights, and those rights 
> are basically perpetual, and transferable.", and go back to having to 
> ***actually*** register the fracking stuff.

Part of the registry process should include submission of an archival 
copy in good condition; or at least the government could impose the 
condition that if the archived copy is deteriorating, then *only* the 
deteriorated version is covered by copyright.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Part of the registry process should include submission of an archival 
> copy in good condition;

They used to. That was part of the point of it all. How would you know it's 
copied if there wasn't a copy you could compare to?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 12-7-2009 20:52, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I think you also need to define more precise what is copyrightable and 
>> what not. 
> 
> That is definitely part of the problem also. (Same with patents.)
> 
> The other part is that some things are cultural. Can the design of the 
> Eiffel Tower or Washington Monument be copyrighted? If so, can you 
> refuse to let tourists take pictures?  Etc.
> 
> I saw an interesting article about de facto "copyright" on public domain 
> artwork. The example was the Sistine chapel, long out of copyright, but 
> there's only one, and the Vatican doesn't let you take pictures. Hence, 
> altho it's public domain, there are no copies available to the public.
> 
>> elaborate scheme? At what point does it become impossible for future 
>> owners to repaint it differently without violating my copyright?
> 
> I don't think copyright gives you the right to prevent others from 
> *destroying* your work. :-)
> 
Related: a small article in a newspaper today: A library has a large 
number of periodicals and newspapers. Nobody can find what they are 
looking for. The interior designer does not give permission to put signs 
on his (or her) bookcases.

Post a reply to this message