Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Auto pilot is not... (Score 1) 329

During a conference call today, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced a coming software update for the Model S electric sedan that the company hopes to roll out in the next three months. Its key feature is a new "autopilot" mode that allows for hands-free driving between certain destinations. "We can basically go between San Francisco and Seattle without the driver doing anything," said Musk.

Comment Re:Once again laws trumps your feels (Score 1) 254

Except copyright only protects...copying verbatim or making derivative copies, still significantly like the original text/work.

Not really true in that respect. It protects all sorts of things, even compilations of works that might be copyrighted by others, but the compilation itself is copyrighted (e.g. the books Brad Templeton made by publishing jokes from rec.humor.funny). It doesn't have to be a verbatim copy, but derive a significant portion of its value from some copyrighted work. In fact, in the UK there was a judgement against someone who merely duplicated a style of photograph, found infringing due to having a history of actual copyright infringement. [I mostly disagree with this ruling, btw, but again copyright isn't strictly verbatim copies.]

The argument is that far fewer people will release their creative projects to the world without some form of protection, so it was coded into the US Constitution and subsequent treaties. Consider making something cool, then someone rich simply stealing the idea and capitalizing it through distribution channels while you reap nothing for your original creative idea. This has happened, and even happens today occasionally.

Basically, works based in fictional universes are copyrighted by the holder of the fictional universe, and such works are considered derivative because a large amount of their value (e.g. recognizability) are from the fictional universe or characters. There are certainly intentional exceptions such as parody where you make fun of the universe or the characters, and that's why sketch comedy like SNL has an ironclad protection to create their humor.

Comment Re:Once again laws trumps your feels (Score 1) 254

If one does not protect their IP then that opens up the door for your competitors to use your IP.

You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright. The Star Trek universe, and the characters, are copyrighted even if someone else writes a script using those characters. The copyright holder can selectively choose to prosecute all or none of the violators at his whim.

Certain copyright violations cannot be prosecuted, such as Fair Use. But it's very unlikely fan fiction can fall under fair use, although that has yet to be seen. I believe Star Trek Continues is trying to use that defense as they are non profit and claim their usage is educational (which usually does fall under Fair Use). This is a weak shield, but they also are not harming the franchise so it will likely be overlooked anyway.

"See a lot of post ignorant of the law."

*cough*

Comment RIP Star Trek Continues (Score 5, Informative) 254

The fundraising issue really bothers me. I know that Star Trek Continues had done some fundraising and was producing 45m episodes that were excellent. The production value was amazing, and they recreated parts of the set that were very convincing.

This may shut that down, without special dispensation from cbs/p.

Comment Re:Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial jud (Score 1) 23

Actually whoever the new guy is, I don't find the site to be "improved" at all; seems a little crummy. The story was butchered and incorrectly interpreted, and the all important software for interaction seems less interactive.

But what do I know?

As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse :)

Comment Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial judge (Score 4, Informative) 23

The story as published implies that the ruling overruled the lower court on the 3 issues. In fact, it was agreeing with the trial court on the third issue -- that the sporadic instances of Vimeo employees making light of copyright law did not amount to adopting a "policy of willful blindness".

Submission + - Appeals court slams record companies on DMCA in Vimeo case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the long-simmering appeal in Capitol Records v. Vimeo, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld Vimeo's positions on many points regarding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In its 55 page decision (PDF) the Court ruled that (a) the Copyright Office was dead wrong in concluding that pre-1972 sound recordings aren't covered by the DMCA, (b) the judge was wrong to think that Vimeo employees' merely viewing infringing videos was sufficient evidence of "red flag knowledge", and (c) a few sporadic instances of employees being cavalier about copyright law did not amount to a "policy of willful blindness" on the part of the company. The Court seemed to take particular pleasure in eviscerating the Copyright Office's rationales. Amicus curiae briefs in support of Vimeo had been submitted by a host of companies and organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Public Knowledge, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Microsoft, Pinterest, Tumblr, and Twitter.

Comment Missing words in summary (Score 1) 244

Replace "video" with "cat videos" and it all makes sense:

Cat videos must be doing well on Facebook, because an executive at the company just predicted that's all Facebook will be in five years. Nicola Mendelsohn, Facebook's vice president of European, Middle Eastern and African operations, said at a conference Tuesday that in five years, Facebook "will be probably all cat videos," Quartz reported. Mendelsohn added that cat videos are "the best way to tell stories in this world" and "helps us to digest much more information." Mendelsohn is predicting the obsolescence of the written word, at least on Facebook, according to Quartz. That sounds far-fetched, but consider the way Facebook is decreasing an emphasis on text and diving headfirst into cat videos with numerous recent updates and features.

Comment Re:More likely idea: unbalanced and violent (Score 1) 404

I do not see where in that scripture anyone is being called on to perform anything, except to avoid such things for one's self.
So, a literal interpretation does not seem to me to give itself to hostile or harmful actions against others ( there is exhortation to discuss, but within the context of followers of Christ persuading someone seemingly errant toward more Godly actions/thoughts ).

We are also told not to judge others, that God will handle that for himself
to forgive others, if we wish to be forgiven
to love others, and pass God's love on to others, even to those we would consider enemies.
I do not know how some claim the label 'Christian' while not being cognizant and observing these

Yes, that scripture does begin with one thing ( homosexuality ), but eventually does include other sin
There may be levels of sin, but I see nothing calling for more than being as correct in oneself as possible.

A note, my Church ( and former Church ) are very likely considered "Fundamentalist", but I never experienced any teaching contrary to love, forgive, dont condemn.

Slashdot Top Deals

Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.

Working...