There's one important element of these leaks that I've never seen anyone comment on: it's all well and good to hack a weak password, but how do these people wind up getting their hands on lists of celebrities' private email addresses? It's not like you can just throw some terms at Google and come up with anything useful.

Are you implying that the shooter in this case wasn't mentally disturbed?

Unless they've change it with this update, you can just skip the OCR half of the process, i.e. you only have to type the distorted text half.

You CAN do frame by frame advance: just hit "e".

Link to full article.

Even if he flat out stole the thing, 1973 was almost 40 years ago -- long past any statute of limitations. So where's the justification in trying to force him to return it?

The setting isn't download safe files, it's run safe files after downloading.

Not even close to the same thing.

And yes, even the existence of such a setting is stupid.

You're saying that it's udderly ridiculous?

It looks to me like the Copyright Office accepted the renewal. Had they not, the record would/should show the original registration only, and you would be left to compute that since the original copyright was filed in 1954 and was not renewed, that the work was now in the public domain.

Also, the link you posted was for The Broken Sword, not for Brainwave.

About 12 years ago, I contacted PG because I was doing some work with pulp stories from the '30's that were public domain, and would have been great to get on the site. While they were a really flaky outfit to deal with, they did have a number of paranoid copyright attorneys at the top of the structure that carefully vetted anything that was even proposed to be included on the site. There must be some kind of story behind how these sci-fi stories managed to bypass that process. The instance cited in the article --

-- is irrelevant because as a general rule of publishing in those magazines, copyright was assigned to the magazine. If the magazine screwed up and didn't renew its copyrights; or simply went out of business, in which case no one was tracking their assets; or got bought out by some other entity and the record keeping went all pear shaped, copyright did not magically revert to the author. Nor is there any precedent to have an author reassert their copyright claim on works that have been assigned to others. The instance in which the magazine did not file a copyright is obviously a specialized case.

...This has got to be seen as a win for the band. They have to pay royalties back to 2002... which is >20 years since the song was released and became a monster hit. Surely its earnings potential has slacked off some since then. Imagine how bad it would be if they had to come up with royalties back to its heyday...