The ISPs are trying to have their cake and eat it too - be classified as an information service so they are not subject to net neutrality, but not be liable for for the information they're transmitting. You can't have it both ways - pick one or the other. At some point the light bulb will go off in their heads and they'll realize one way means possibly billions of dollars in new liability every year, while the other just means a slightly weaker business model that really isn't a weakness at all if every ISP has to abide by it. (What would be fun would be to classify just the ISPs claiming to be an "information service" as an information service, and make them liable for everything they're transmitting, while competing ISPs who abide by net neutrality are not liable.
Sorry, but no. If anyone can make a copy of a work featuring a trademarked character, then the trademark on that character, with regard to goods that are copies of creative works, has to lapse, as the mark has become generic in that context. Once the door is opened for multiple sources of identically marked goods, it kills the trademark. This is just the copyright version of the SHREDDED WHEAT case from the 1930s, plus a bit of the more recent Dastar case.
And the trademark can't prevent people from copying works or creating new derivative works that feature the same trademarked characters.
You're thinking of something more like nominative use, in which a third party can use a mark without permission under certain circumstances. I'm saying that there would no longer be an applicable mark at all.
There is no stripping of assets.
The natural state of a creative work is to be in the public domain. Authors do not create copyrights; the public creates them (through our servant, the government), with the public benefit in mind. Some works aren't even eligible for copyright at all, because it wouldn't be for the public benefit. When a copyright is granted, it is for a limited period of time, because a perpetual copyright can never be for the public benefit.
Thus, a better way to imagine the situation is this: if the government owns a parcel of public land, such as a small building suitable for a restaurant at a visitor's center in a national park, it can rent the restaurant space to a private business for a period of time. So long as the restaurateur makes his rent and follows other previously agreed upon terms (e.g. compliance with applicable law, signage that complies with the standards set by the park administrators, etc) he is free to profit as much as he can.
But when the lease expires, the restaurateur cannot argue that his business venue has been taken from him, even though it might be a profitable location forever. It was never his to begin with; he just got to use it for a while.
Regarding Mickey Mouse, copyright policy has to ignore subjective assessments of artistic value. What's important is getting as many works as possible created, published, and into the public domain (and as close to the public domain as possible until fully in the public domain). That's how you best serve the public interest.
And if an author argues that his private interest is more important than the public interest, that's all well and good, and I don't have a problem with his self interest (indeed, we're relying on it to motivate him), but why should the public ignore its own collective self interest? As there's no possibility of a copyright without it being granted by the public, authors are not in a strong bargaining position.
Plus you can't project exponential growth out to infinity. It is inevitable that some factor will come to limit the growth. It has been really incredible how long transistors have maintained their growth, but even that seems to be coming to an end.
Also, we're probably not going to have a 64->128 bit transition. Not without a fundamental change in the way we do computing.
Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
When you deposit $US with a US bank, in a savings account or CD, it can loan out 100% of your deposit. If banks offered BTC-denominated savings accounts, they'd work the same way. If you're thinking "but wait, that means there wouldn't be enough bitcoins in existence to allow everyone to withdraw their deposits", then congratulations, you understand how banking works.
The difference of course is with fiat currency the government/central bank can "print"* money on demand and lend it to the commercial banks so they can cover their customers withdrawals.
With BTC denominated accounts if everyone tries to withdraw their BTC at once the bank has a big problem. They can try to buy BTC to cover the withdrawals but there is no guarantee they will actually be able to.
* It starts out as entries in the central banks database but if the customers are demanding their money in cash then that cash will have to be physically printed and sent to the banks.
bitcoins reside in "unspent outputs" in the blockchain. The unspent outputs are associated with an "address". An "address" is a cryptographic hash of a public key and the holder of the corresponding private key can spend the bitcoins.
A wallet is basically a collection of private keys for addresses (or sometimes just a generator seed for said keys). To an outside observer it is not visible whether two addresses are part of the same wallet or not. The only thing that distinguishes between a customer withdrawl and a move to cold storage is the internal records of the exchange. If the echange isn't keeping proper records it is unlikely to be feasible to distinguish thefts from legimitate withdrawls (and even if the exchange is keeping records do you trust those records to be honest?)
And yes if the private key for an address is lost (or someone sends bitcoins to an address that wasn't obtained by hashing a public key) the coins are gone for good. Bitcoin propoonents maintain this is not a significant issue.because of the divisibility of bitcoins, I have some reservations about that.
Liar, the upgrade is most definitely not free for life, your data has value M$ is taking and hence you are paying for it. As for permanently blocking updates what do you do about security and the inevitable slew of security bugs. Face it, this is turning out to be an even bigger fuck you from M$ to it's customer than windows 8 was. The very first time you do a security update they can and will hose all your settings, requiring a full check of all settings and some could well have been permanently removed as an option.
I'll have to call bullshit on this comment because standard M$ practice is to turn stuff back on during upgrades even after you have specifically turned them off. So, compulsory upgrades means any settings you make are not fixed and are only temporary and according to the M$ non-warranty, anyone they want to allow into your computer is allowed in at any time no matter what your settings are, NSA, cough, cough. Basically it seems windows 10 is the NSA spy dream come true, do not install. If you must, pay the extra for the professional version which is exactly why M$ change pretty much a hundred dollars more for it because it knows full well, anyone who wants to at least pretend to secure their computer will be forced to pay that protection racket cost ie pay the hundred dollars or else everyone owns your information, your browsing history, you digital habits and that especially means for you nasty foreigners those who under US law you specifically can never trust (they are legally entitled to lie, cheat, steal and kill with regards to you and yours according to US law, no stinking courts required).
You can expect an EU legal sanction in pretty short order.
Look it up http://www.thefreedictionary.c..., English spelling as in how it is spelt in England the home of the English language. Not stupid American spelling because special spelling was required for them because it seems they are a bit thick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
So yes it does apply to the magazine when it is sent electronically. No it does not apply to the magazine when it is printed and sent via a truck and then van and then motorbike. I mean exactly how thick can you be, I thought I could not be clearer. Look the people who are paying you, well, they should simply get someone better, you are quite simply not good enough and just make their arguments look worse. Keep pulling boners like this and you'll be out of work but PR=B$ is far worse than no PR=B$.
Actually, the Copyright Act was replaced entirely in 1976 (becoming effective in 1978), and has been amended some, yet in substantial ways, since then. Noises are being made about a new Copyright Act coming along in the near future.
The person who wrote the summary is a bit confused. What happened is that the Warner claim was based on a copy published in 1935. Evidence was discovered of a copy that was published in 1927. That's not terribly interesting, but a copy published in 1922 has also come to light. That is interesting, because the cutoff for copyright on published works is 1923. (Due to the duration of copyright prior to the effective date of the 1976 Act, which retroactively lengthened the term of copyrights that were still in force)
IPv4 should just go away already. Linux, Mac, and WinDOS had had IPV6 forever. Whatever doesn't support IPv6 should just go away as well. All that old shit is hackable virus prone garbage anyway.
The problem is that numerous companies haven't invested the time or money in ensuring their network can speak IPv6 or to the IPv6 world. The main issue has probably been that it was cheaper to do business a usual. Until major services do an IPv4 blackout day or ARIN raises the prices of the remaining IPv6, companies will be dragging their feet.
One site amongst the feet draggers is
Disney holds a trademark on Mickey Mouse, and can retain said ownership into perpetuity. That aspect alone can rightfully keep anyone else from utilizing the character in their own works, forever,
No, that part of the trademark will lapse when the copyright terminates. A trademark can't function as a substitute for a copyright. The remainder of the trademark might prevent people from selling MICKEY MOUSE brand breakfast cereal, but it would not stop them from using the character in their own works.
This is really the main reason that Disney is concerned about copyright terms; they know what would happen to the trademark.
I am wondering whether at this point ARIN would be justified to raising the price for remaining IPv4 addresses and offer IPv6 addresses at a lower cost? And then raise cost as a ratio of remaining IPv4 addresses available to hand out? I am sure this would change business perspective on how much to delay IPv6 adoption?