Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 251

by DerekLyons (#49178849) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

That argument only makes sense if you've downed a fifth of Jack and snorted a couple of grams a coke - or if you're completely and totally ignorant of the law.

And yet it made sense to me, and I'm sober as a judge for some reason.

Then you fall into the second category. Or you're just ignorant.
 

Well, works can also enter the public domain through other mechanisms, such as most famously having the copyright term expire.

Since we're talking about works that haven't been around long enough to have their copyrights expire, that's totally irrelevant.
 

But the earlier poster didn't say that they might become generic, he said that they might be generic. This would be the scenes a faire doctrine.

Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine. Try searching for the terms on Google.
 

I haven't watched the show

Yet, you blither on anyways.

Comment: Re:Author of post doesn't understand Fair Use... (Score 1) 251

by DerekLyons (#49176657) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

Bennett Haselton doesn't seem to know how Fair Use works, and is dangerously and irresponsibly mischaracterizing it as something he himself can assess and negate/affirm. The non-commercial and transformative aspects of the Power Rangers video in question might in fact hold up in court; he doesn't know otherwise, and to insist that he does is legally misguided.

All that means is Bennett Haselton is a typical Slashdot poster.

Comment: Re:TOTALLY fair use (Score 1) 251

by DerekLyons (#49176649) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

The poster has no clue about how fair use works.

Honestly? Neither do you.
 

So it scores highly on all four criteria. This is absolutely fair use.

*Sigh*. Fair use is a set of legal guidelines - not a checklist or a scoresheet. You can "score highly" (whatever that means) on all four (the actual four), and still be found to be infringing. Fair Use is decided on a case-by-case basis using these guidelines and the principles behind them.
 

2. Is it transformative? That is, does it use the original work as raw material to create something new, rather than just copying it for the sake of copying it? Yes it is.

And this is a prime example of what you have no clue about - the question isn't "is it transformative?", it's "is it derivative or transformative?". As it re-uses character names, history, and distinctive costumes - a very strong arguement can be made that it is in fact derivative.

But in actuality, fair use of copyrighted material isn't even the issue here - it's the use of trademarked material. (The names, color schemes, costume designs, etc...) Granted, it's unfair to the public that companies can use trademarks to make an end run around copyright, but there is no fair use for trademarks.

Comment: Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 251

by DerekLyons (#49174537) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

As a derivative work, Saban doesn't own squat, and ownership, if there is any, probably belongs to Toei Company.

That depends entirely on the licensing agreement between Saban and Toei, no "probably" about it - that's how the law works.
 

However, as the same characters have appeared in many works *as different characters*, the argument might also be made that they are generic.

That argument only makes sense if you've downed a fifth of Jack and snorted a couple of grams a coke - or if you're completely and totally ignorant of the law. The established principle (with regards to trademarks) is that they become generic only if the owner of the mark fails to defend it against unlicensed and infringing usages. As the Saban's version of the Power Rangers is a licensed work, that principle cannot possibly apply here. There is no mechanism I am aware of for a copyrighted work to become generic. It can be formally released into the public domain, but that's another issue and is not applicable here as no such formal release has been made.
 

So this is basically yet another example of someone claiming ownership of something they never owned, which is precisely why copyright is such a farce in general.

No, this is another case of a Slashdot poster, ignorant of the law, creating assumptions out of thin air and then using convoluted sophomoric logic to reach a predetermined conclusion.

 

Comment: Re:Google supports Yahoo! (Score 1) 167

by DerekLyons (#49168679) Attached to: Marissa Mayer On Turning Around Yahoo

Nonsense. Everywhere but Gmail* that Google has tried to take on Yahoo - they've gotten their hands burned. Google does exceedingly well at buying startups and entering businesses where there's little to no competition... But (outside of search where they really did have a clear new idea), their record of taking on entrenched competition is mixed at best.

* Which was aimed as much at Microsoft as Yahoo!, and took a long time and (essentially) forcing Android users to have a Google account to best either one of them.

Comment: It's all about the money.. (Score 1) 145

by DerekLyons (#49167755) Attached to: Google+ Divided Into Photos and Streams, With New Boss

The thing too is that I already had a login that worked with gmail, voice, youtube, chat and the play store. All of a sudden I need to register for a G+ profile to be able to leave comments on Youtube and Google Play because.....

You tell me.

Because... one of the keys ways for Google to compete with Facebook in the only arena that matters (the bottom line) was to compete for advertising dollars. G+ was a shortcut to more easily tracking Google users across multiple services and increasing the value (to Google) of their massive database of user information.

Comment: Re:Haters gonna hate... (Score 1) 145

by DerekLyons (#49166431) Attached to: Google+ Divided Into Photos and Streams, With New Boss

I've never really understood the vitriol toward G+.

That's because you've drunk deeply of the kool-aid.
 

The press doing what they do (and no doubt strongly encouraged by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple) created a narrative of Google taking aim at Facebook and how they will most certainly fail. Google has repeated many times what the G+ initiative was about, but the press either ignored the facts or said Google was lying. How dare Google try to disrupt their narrative with something as inconsequential as facts. G+ is a framework to unify Google services. Before, it was a complete mess. You had different userids and passwords

If all they wanted to do was to create a unified login, all they had to do was the same thing Yahoo and many other services have done... Simply announce the availability of (or requirement for) a unified account and provided a link to a page with relevant information and tools.

But that's not what they did.

The created a "Facebook [like|light] streaming update system. ("Light" because it was very feature incomplete.) They emasculated Picasa (and their last best hope for competing with the likes of Flickr and Photobucket) in order to encourage people to use the Photos application which was integrated into that system. Pre-launch they very carefully recruited celebrities, tastemakers, and influential internet personalities across a wide range of activities to be early adopters and to provide users with a ready made suite of people to "follow" and "like". (Seriously, you don't go to the effort of recruiting the like of Thomas Hawk (photography) or Marc Spagnuolo (woodworking)* unless you intend to attract photographers and woodworkers to your service - something an integrated login doesn't need.) And then they marketed it extensively (one of the very few times Google has actively marketed anything) as a social service.

In short, they pretty much did everything possible to make G+ look like a social media system (and a successor to their previous, failed, attempts) and a competitor to Facebook. It's not all surprising in light of this that media (and the public) failed to buy their belated claim that the whole thing was nothing but a way to introduce a unified login and account system.

* Both are internet personalities with a significant following in their fields.

Comment: Re:It's almost like the Concord verses the 747 aga (Score 2) 157

by DerekLyons (#49154295) Attached to: Hyperloop Testing Starts Next Year

And in this case, the US$9.95 billion California High-Speed Rail is a huge example on how much money you can make on transportation.

The usual way to determine if a project is making money is to subtract operating costs and the amortized portion of construction costs from operating revenue - and to date the unbuilt California High-Speed Rail system has precisely zero operating revenue. It's projected to make money (according to it's backers), but projections aren't revenue.

Put your best foot forward. Or just call in and say you're sick.

Working...