The copyright isn't "theft" it is Nazi memorabilia. Note, not the words or books of the words, which are in libraries all over Germany, apparently, but the *copyright* on the words.
But still, the
Yes, this is logically nonsense, but if all the courts agree to the same nonsense then it becomes legal (cf, Generally Accepted Accounting Standards) or at least a legal fiction.
Yeah, I guess so.
Likewise, the German courts could just redefine the copyrights G's diaries as Nazi memorabilia or some such, and if it is agreed by any court that could reverse it in Germany (don't know how their courts are organized) then it stands. Since Nazi memorabilia cannot be sold or displayed in German jurisdictions, the copyrights cannot be enforced. I assume that the German government cannot just make an ex post facto law covering the situation like the British could, of course, since that is the simplest way to go if one can get away with it.
If a quote were memorabilia, then wouldn't a book containing the quote also contain memorabilia, and therefore be illegal to sell? Also, if we're going with copyright=theft, then, even if it's illegal to sell memorabilia, is it illegal to sue for theft of memorabilia?
Yes, we are all going to die sooner or later, and all civilisations will fail sooner or later (if for no other reason, the cosmos will eventually succumb to entropy). In any case, I'd rather go with later than sooner, and I think worrying about it might help.
I think it's fair to say that some civilisations probably failed due to events that were beyond their ability to predict or prevent, but I think it's also fair to say that other civilisations probably failed due to events that they could have predicted and prevented, if only they'd worried more. Rapanui (Easter Island) and the Roman Empire are a couple of examples of cases that might fall into the latter category.
There are also disasters such as plagues and fires, etc. that have been pretty damaging, but not civilisation ending. In my country, a city was hit by an earthquake a while back, that caused a lot of damage. Building codes are stricter now, because people are more worried about it, and think this might help.
I always wear a seat belt when travelling by car, and in almost every case it's been an unnecessary precaution, and then one day, it wasn't. I've had vaccinations, which were possibly unnecessary, I don't know. My country, like most, has armed forces which spend most of their time
We don't have complete knowledge, so we do risk management. We estimate, or just guess, the probability of an event, it's severity if it did happen, and the costs and benefits of preparations for it, and act accordingly. I think we should, even if the events usually don't happen, because one day, one might.
The photographer does hold the copyright to the photograph, but copyright isn't a right to make copies of the photograph, it's a right to prevent people from making copies of the photograph. People other than the photographer may hold other rights that also preclude making copies of the photograph (but that doesn't mean they're allowed to make copies of the photograph either).
Your first link is very different from the other two. In the first case, the guy who owned the camera initially claimed he was not the photographer--specifically that a monkey picked up his camera and took the photo itself. (The photo became a bit of a sensation on this basis, but when it came to light that you don't get copyright just by owning a camera, the guy changed his story, and instead claimed he had got the shot ready, and just let the monkey push the button.) In this case, the question is about who (or what) the photographer was, and therefore who (if anyone) holds copyright (since monkeys can't hold copyright). In this case, it is questionable whether the guy who owned the camera holds copyright, and therefore whether he can preclude others from making copies.
The other two links don't relate to disputes about who the photographer is, and therefore don't relate to disputes about who holds copyright. In these cases, it is not in question that the photographer can preclude people from making copies. What is in question is whether other people hold other rights that also preclude the photographer from making copies.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
That's not true. Wilson Parking also does this. (I expect there are others too.)
There's ultimately no way to makes laws other than "those in power decide," as every system is really that system under the covers - by the definition of "power."
I think having proposed legislation vetted by juries would help.
Giving someone money isn't speech, but it can be closely tied to speech in such a way that taking away your ability to do so effectively infringes upon your free speech rights.
I disagree. I rather suspect that most of the money that people might make from such speech (assuming drawings of children having sex is considered a form of speech) comes from the legal right to prevent other people from copying them. This legal right is granted "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
To be clear, I'm not advocating a ban on drawing, or the possessition of drawings, but I'm far from convinced that the right to free speech encompases a right to claim payment for drawing children having sex.
Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror
... The game's play centers on the player's character of the Doctor (specifically his sixth incarnation), and his robotic programmable cat Splinx.
"In very rare circumstances do you ask a court to rule on a contract before anything has happened." -- queazocotal
That's my understanding too--a court generally gets involved when someone alleges someone else has broken the law, not when someone is considering doing something and wants to check it won't break the law. I expect Dixie_Flatline got the opposite view from the linked Microsoft or WinBeta articles, both of which imply otherwise (although neither directly state it). I'd hazard a guess that the WinBeta article is largely parroting the Microsoft one, and my feeling is that neither are particularly reliable sources.
How about instead of playing five knuckle shuffle while attempting to funnel more money into the government coffers we instead look at ways to sequester the carbon emissions and perhaps replace them with naturally economically viable solutions?
Governments could put more money into research, but it would still have to come from somewhere (not that I'm saying this is necessarily a bad idea, but I think it's a false dichotomy).
The entire idea behind cap and trade is to restrict usage and it hits the poor the worse.
Yes, but everything hits the poor worse. If food prices rise as a result of increasing crop failures, this would hit the poor worse too.
The costs of patent litigation exceed their investment value in all industries except chemistry and pharmaceuticals.
Bessen, James & Meurer, Michael J. (2008) Patent Failure. Princeton University Press.
So it would make sense to abolish patents in all other areas.
The economically optimal copyright length, assuming a single flat term, is slightly less than 15 years
Pollock, Rufus (2009) Forever Minus a Day? Calculating Optimal Copyright Term.
I think it might be better to have a shorter copyright term followed by a further copyleft term though.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
