Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It is really really stupid. (Score 1) 197

I guess only nude portrate photographs are going to be allowed as someone owns the copyright on the clothes designs

Interestingly, fashion is not protected IP and is widely copied. That's why so much fashion has prominent branding. The brands are of course trademarked and can't be legally reproduced.

While much of the industry is lobbying hard for new protections, some people embrace its free culture.

Comment Re:Flop?! (Score 4, Informative) 33

The Last Starfighter game built from the 8-bit Orbiter game follows the film / game-within-the-film pretty closely. Obviously an Atari 800 couldn't hope to reproduce it visually but it is an excellent tie-in in terms of theme and play. It was leaked in the 80s and I played the hell out of it.

Atari's coin-op division also developed a Last Starfighter game that was very faithful to the game shown in the film. It was also unreleased.

Why neither game was released remains a matter of speculation.

Comment Re:What I like best is (Score 1) 120

You could make new Mickey Mouse cartoons as long as you base then solely on the public domain aspects and can convincingly argue that your updates aren't taken from still-copyrighted material. And you will have to argue because Disney will sue your ass even though you are in the right.

See new "Sherlock Holmes" stories and the machinations of the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle for precedent.

Submission + - Judge wipes out Safe Harbor provision in DMCA, makes Cox accomplice of piracy

SysKoll writes: The DMCA is well-known for giving exorbitant powers to copyright holders, such as taking down a page or a whole web site without a court order. Media companies buy services from vendors like Rightscorp, a shake-down outfit that issues thousands of robot-generated take-down notices and issues threats against ISPs and sites ignoring them.

Cox, like a lot of ISP, is inundated with abusive take-down notices, in particular from Rightscorp. Now, BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music are suing Cox for refusing to shut off the Internet access of subscribers that Rightscorp accused of downloading music via BitTorrent. Cox argues that as an ISP, they benefit from the Safe Harbor provision that shields access providers from subscribers' misbehavior.

Not so, says US District Judge Liam O'Grady. The judge sided with the media companies ahead of trial, saying Cox should have terminated the repeat offenders accused by Rightscorp. Cox's response is quite entertaining for a legal document: its description of Rightscorp includes the term "shady", "shake-down", and "pay no attention to the facts"

O'Grady also derided the Electronic Frontier Foundations's attempt to file an amicus brief supporting Cox, calling them hysterical crybabies.

This case will be closely watched and can be very damaging for the Internet industry.

Comment Re: That it is not (Score 1) 3

So did the religious parents of the children in the study. The data doesn't appear to support that feeling.

Across all countries, parents in religious households reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior.

Comment Re:Where can I find more? (Score 1) 37

Also, forgot to mention this, if you want to get in deep, check out Casey Muratori's Handmade Hero series of live-coding streams. See how a game can be built entirely from scratch without starting with prebuilt engines, special tools or middle ware. Follow along and make the game yourself. Every aspect is covered in incredible detail.

Comment Re:Where can I find more? (Score 2) 37

A good place to start might be the talks archived at the GDC Vault.

You can read all back-issues of Game Developer Magazine there as well.

And sister website Gamasutra has loads of stuff like this.

More low-level and rudimentary topics are covered by a couple of good YouTube channels.

If you want to dip your toes into game development without needing to know anything, check out Tom Francis' GameMaker tutorials.

Comment Re:add a clause. (Score 1) 190

In this case, the person who files the claim is not a legal representative of the copyright owner.

No, they are a legal representative of the organisation asserting the copyright and making the complaint. That's all that matters. It's about misrepresentation. Read the clause and use your head. It doesn't matter that they are wrong about copyright ownership, they can't perjury themselves that way. Do you think everyone on the losing end of a copyright dispute is charged with perjury in a court of law?

Comment Re:add a clause. (Score 4, Insightful) 190

It's shameful but Sony has nothing to lose by saying they own everything 100% of the time. This phase of the YouTube copyright claim process doesn't even involve the horrible DMCA. This prelude is all copyright enforcement theater. The bitch of it is going to be clearing YouTube's copyright strike against the owner of the footage. If this happens a couple more times, his channel could be shutdown permanently, even if the strikes are bogus.

Comment Re:add a clause. (Score 1) 190

Well, in that case, the person who filed the claim committed perjury because SONY didn't own the copyright to the video—they only had a license to use/redistribute it.

Whether or not they actually own the footage is beside the point. It's not perjury unless you can show that the person who filed the DMCA doesn't work for Sony. It's that simple and toothless.

Comment Re:Sony's claim was actually valid (Score 5, Informative) 190

If you RTFA instead of just commenting, you'll see that Sony had an exclusive license.

It doesn't say that at all. The article very clearly indicates it was a non-exclusive license.

I had issued a license for the claiming party to use my footage but they have no claim to any copyright for my content.

4. Copyright: Mitch Martinez, retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Stock Files not expressly granted by the License Grant above. Such rights are protected by the United States and International Copyright laws and international treaty provisions. You may be held legally responsible for any copyright infringement that is caused or encouraged by your failure to abide by the terms of this Agreement.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You'll pay to know what you really think." -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs