this article applies to the uk, but it is cruel and unusual punishment i think.
this article applies to the uk, but it is cruel and unusual punishment i think.
You mean like the frosted glass commonly used for bathroom windows and shower doors? I see this as being a form of image processing that will rapidly be perfected.
in the corporate federation of America, college loans are government guaranteed but the debt themselves can never be bankrupted on and can be garnished with a few small exceptions. but it doesn't worry the rich, because they have millions of dollars and their kids only go to elite schools and if they have student loans it is because of their parents plan to not give them a free ride.
and in the corporate federation of America as long as the rich are safe and sound there is no reason to worry.
the thing is anti copyright works for the small artist as well. there are thousands of 'youtube channels' where people get real money for doing youtube content, and google doesn't charge them a dime, but does have a license agreement. google dabbled in a crowd sourced tv channel (it might still be around not sure though)
with all we do over the web, why should dinosaurs who refuse to adapt from 'contracts' that give all the profit to copyright holders forever while the artist gets a few perks and a tiny amount of the profit. the system is broken copyright was 10 years originally and that was before computers, and yet publishers thrived, and e-publishing is almost a no brainer with writers using $200-$300 devices to do all their writing and the publisher should be able to make ebooks from that for less cost than real published books. and while ebooks are doing okay, they often sell higher than used books...
in a fair world there would be no copyright holders there would be artists and tip jars/royalties from distributors who do things like custom swag and custom cd-r or dvd+--r audio and royalties from corporations but not from individuals and while it sounds scary to the old guard people who actually create content would see massive profits if people actually used them. the record labels were against radio until copyright made it so they could charge radio stations huge fees. and now that anyone can download a movie and put it on removable media. with terrabyte hdds for $70 and dvd-recorders for $20 and dvd blanks for $6 for 25 discs home/indy distribution has never been cheaper... and make no mistake, the tools to create and edit content have never been cheaper or better than they are now, especially with many tools available as foss.
we don't need middlemen anymore and it scares them so they have pushed for internet radio and streaming as an 'alternative' to piracy, to take away ownership. and they won't stop there. smartphones are amazing, but people pay more fees for phones than before. they are meant as streaming devices with apis and apps unable it seems to even load a directory on a sd micro chip and build a playlist 'without syncing' and forcing it all over usb... i have a chinese tablet that can auto 'bless' a folder as long as it is the sd/tf drive but none of the android players i've seen are capable of auto detecting and 'blessing' a folder as a feature on my smartphone. so i have to 'sync' the phone to get music to play on it, and the phone has a crap usb chip that makes my 17gb music folder 6 hours to 'sync' when i can add a folder to the sd micro and it takes 30 minutes to copy to that and then no worry about useless DRM that route who can say with 'syncing' that they aren't adding drm to un drmed files as part of 'syncing' the music.
the whole point of the toilet is that it gets rid of waste with 0 water usage. in many regions water is scarce and what little there is is used for drinking water. this is not a kit for people with septic or city sewer, as their water usage is predicted already, with logistics.
as for off the grid living you can blame congress for that. they passed laws so that 99% of the population has to be on grid and with telephone service... as a 'basic' human right. at least that was their logic when they passed the laws.
you seem to be under the impression that space is a hard vacuum it is not, modern observatories including space ones have hinted that there is a lot of space dust that hasn't coalesced into larger bodies. there are a lot of small, medium, and large space debris in the way. without a force shield even if the warp drive disintegrates the small stuff a pool ball sized debris is going to be rather like an atomic blast no force shield no ftl travel. and if people are going onboard they are going to have to do something that hasn't been done in a long time, have a stable pool of healthy reproducing children unless of course we simply use robots up until we 'seed' planets with cloned human beings.
given the age of the universe as measured by xray telescopes it is quite unlikely that life didn't evolve long before humans came around, and that those beings could have developed technology to seed the universe and had their planets freeze up or burn up. as the galactic habitable zone shifted through the years.
you do realize interstellar transport is impossible right? even if you use atomic metals to power it it would take roughly a third the power of the largest atomic bomb to accelerate 1 kilogram of mass http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34180-energy-needed-to-reach-99-c/. to accelerate and then decelerate from light speed is unrealistic. not to mention the problem of needing working force fields, as hitting anything is the same as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_kill_vehicle without force shields nothing works, and again you'd need all the uranium in the whole solar system to speed and decelerate a small ship with humans on board, or perhaps send machine grown clones at the end of the journey to save on power consumption.
the main point of the movie is that companies are offshoring profits to avoid the 35% corporate tax rate, and that so called laws to get the money back in the usa don't create jobs but rather let companies reward the people at the top and cut jobs drastically.
No, publicity rights are a branch of state tort law. Copyrights are a sui generis branch of federal law.
And a copyright release is just a copyright license (or more rarely, an assignment), which means that it pertains to a particular creative work. A publicity release has to do with using someone's face, image, statements, etc. While you could conceivably have them both in the same form, it's rare that you'd need to or want to.
And I assure you, they are not related even the teeniest tiniest bit. Not in their policy goals, or how they originated, or which governments created them, or who gets them, or how long they last, or what they cover. There is no commonality.
Are you too lazy to google for the difference between copyrights and publicity rights? Perhaps this web page from the Library of Congress will help you out: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/co...
Copyright law is utterly unrelated to publicity rights. You're just stringing words together.
A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed.
No, not quite.
A mere performance, by itself, is not copyrightable. In order to be copyrightable, a performance must be fixed in a tangible medium. This always raises the question of whether the person doing the fixation is the actual author, or at least a joint author, with equal rights in the work. Basically it hinges on creativity. If the actor is in charge of their own costuming, lighting, cinematography, and direction, and everyone else is just following orders like a robot, with no creative input, and we set aside issues of works made for hire, then yes, the actor would be the sole author of the film. But if the actor isn't in charge of everything which, along with the performance, is being filmed, then they may be only one of many authors, and if it's the actor who is following orders like a robot, the actor may not have contributed any sort of authorship at all.
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony is what you'll want to take a look at.
Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance.
Got some cases you can cite for that?
Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*.
And publicity and privacy rights, which are what you get releases for, are not copyrights. They are not even vaguely related.
to be fair warcraft iii the frozen throne is discless playback on battle.net all you have to do is run the updater and it runs with no disc. people still play it, and i know i was missing showers, sleeping 4-6 hours a night and playing virtually the rest of the day and night.
i have seen plenty of cg newspapers in games (sim city, axis and allies) and the press just reuse stock photos to get the story for their newspaper even if it is just a lie.
I never even said a word about the lawyers making money. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else?
"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe