Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:impactful? (Score 1) 58

Name two significantly divergent possible interpretations of "impactful".

I'm not talking about grammar-nazism, I'm talking about staleness. Languages die when you bar them from evolving. Sure, there are certain fields where a strict, formally defined language is preferable — law, science, etc. This is not the case here, there's no doubt what is meant by impactful, no grey areas, no ambiguity.

Comment Re:impactful? (Score 0) 58

Fuck prescriptivism. "Impactful" is entirely and fully understandable and a valid word in every sense of the latter.

Also you're the one who sounds faux-formal (oh I bet this pisses you off, a goddamn sentence fragment aaaaa). Just because English isn't currently 100% agglutinative 100% of the time doesn't mean it can't be some of the time. Sincerepostin' over here.

Comment Re:Text of proposal (Score 2) 297

But how much is dilligent? Somehow I doubt a fre google queries will count. Large companies may be able to hire a historian to go and trawl through old newspapers of the period looking for advertisments or reading actor biographies in hope of finding a passing reference, but that effectively excludes amateurs who don't have the time or money for that level of checking.

It's actually defined int he text too.

#Article 3 Diligent search
31. For the purposes of establishing whether a work is an orphan work, the organisations referred to in Article 1(1) shall ensure that a diligent search is carried out for each work, by consulting the appropriate sources for the category of works in question.

32. The sources that are appropriate for each category of works shall be determined by each Member State, in consultation with rightholders and users, and include, the sources listed in the Annex.

33. A diligent search is required to be carried out only in the Member State of first publication or broadcast.

34. Member States shall ensure that the results of diligent searches carried out in their territories are recorded in a publicly accessible database.

So it seems that each state will define some central rights repository or authority, maybe the national libraries?

Comment Text of proposal (Score 4, Informative) 297

Can be found here:

Interesting stuff, hopefully it'll eventually pass. In short, if you do a "diligent search" and are unable to locate a rightsholder, the work will be considered orphan. This is basically an area "between" copyright and public domain; you're allowed to reproduce the work "for the purposes of digitization, making available, indexing, cataloguing, preservation or restoration."

Comment Re:S2S (Score 1) 237

That's not how the scam works. They just work under the assumption that once a business reaches a certain size, the board/owners/whoever doesn't sign off on every single thing anymore. So some invoice for 100 dollars or whatever, a secretary or somebody is authorized to pay it. And if it looks legit enough it might get paid without a second thought. So if you send out small invoices to thousands of companies and say 200 end up paying, that's a pretty decent ROI.

Usually it's about something like being listed on some webpage or in some pamphlet so they can say they actually provided a service, though.

Slashdot Top Deals

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.