Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Unity on Slashdot? (Score 1) 282

Your two statements are contradictory.

They're not. Holding a copyright on a work does not confer one with complete authority as to how that work may be used. The rights which comprise copyright are relatively few; further, they are themselves limited in a number of respects.

For example, copyright on a book does not include a right to prohibit other people from reading the book. The list of exclusive rights that together form a copyright can mostly be found at 17 USC 106. (Again, only for the purposes of US copyright law; I have no idea about foreign copyright law, and I don't care to)

And posting a picture on your website doesn't tell or demonstrate anything.

The conduct of doing so, assuming a website open to the public, is an implicit license to anyone to access and view it (and to make incidental copies in the process of doing so).

If I happen to know that the Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see it. And if I happen to know the URL of your picture, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see your picture; this is so whether I provide people with a link to be manually followed, or an embedded link to be automatically followed such that the picture appears in the web page. I'm not copying it onto my website or anything.

First sale is not profiting in a commercial sense.

It is absolutely that. A used book store will sell copies of works for a profit, because it is a commercial enterprise. It is totally reliant on the first sale doctrine. Ditto however many independent video stores still exist (since it's perfectly legal to rent lawfully made copies of movies that you own).

Commercial use is not fair use.

Well, where the hell were you when the Supreme Court needed your input in 1994 in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music?

There the Court not only found that a commercial use certainly could be a fair use, they even said that it is wrong to treat a commercial use as being presumptively unfair. Commerciality is just an element to be considered, and that's all:

If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of  107, including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities "are generally conducted for profit in this country." Harper & Row, supra, at 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Congress could not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not inferable from the common-law cases, arising as they did from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could pronounce that "[n]o man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." 3 Boswell's Life of Johnson 19 (G. Hill ed. 1934).

But then I guess you already knew everything you wrong was wrong since you fell the need to try and make your point using an insult.

'Everything you wrong was wrong?' What the hell is that?

Anyway, I called you an idiot because you're clearly an idiot. It had nothing to do with my actual argument. But my advice to you is that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, at least within the context of US copyright law, and you would do yourself, and everyone else a great service if you'd shut the fuck up and learn something from a legitimate, neutral source before you next presume to talk about it.

Comment Re:It Made Me Think the Future is Bright (Score 2) 204

I concur - my own dark sense of optimism was formed at the Age of 2 thru 4 during the initial run of the show. After that, I refilled periodically with reruns...

I think this is what differentiates this 'border' generation (tweeners) - they were at the right age to absorb and appreciate Star Trek deeper than they consciously knew at the time. These are the people holding together the technological world today as the boomers go off and retire not really understanding it, and the generations that have followed never knowing a world without the technology they depend upon - and take for granted every day.

That being said, there are many people doing amazing things to help solve problems, and accomplish the piece parts that can make up a better world when put together. In fits and starts progress is being made - so I can't complain really. I continue to stand by my dark optimism.

Comment Re:Unity on Slashdot? (Score 3, Informative) 282

You still retain all rights to decide how people may use that photo.

No, you still retain whatever rights you had. You certainly don't have complete authority to decide how other people may use it. So long as other people use it in a manner which doesn't infringe on your copyright, you can't control them at all, in fact.

At no time does making something publicly available give a 3rd party ability to profit from it.

It does for first sale. It does for fair use, if the particular use happens to qualify (commercial uses are fully able to be fair uses). There's a number of other exceptions that can apply as well. For example, if you release a record, other people can record and sell cover versions of it, and the whole intent of this was to allow third parties the ability to profit without the permission of the copyright holder.

This sounds like a perfectly ordinary copyright ruling

In fact, this is an asinine ruling. The court got it right before, when it found that linking to a file which had been put up with authorization was not infringing (which the exact thing you've been claiming was infringing, idiot). Here, the difference was that the underlying files had been put up in an infringing manner. But, rather than tell the rights holder to go after the actual wrong-doer who put them up to begin with, they decided to shift liability to third parties who were not responsible for the underlying infringement. It's very reminiscent of the stupid 'right to be forgotten' cases, in that it tries to sweep things under the carpet by imposing liability on the wrong parties just because they're more convenient.

Comment Re:Well, I thought we had settled this (Score 1) 282

Commercial use is, and it always has been too. This isn't anything surprising to anyone who's done as much as first year of lawschool. There's a big difference between publishing content, even distributing it widely, and making a profit of the said content.

I have no idea about European copyright law, nor do I care, but in the US, there's not any significant difference.

Infringement is essentially any infringement of the rights granted to authors in section 106, which are subject to various exceptions and limitations.

Prima facie infringement makes no distinction between commercial and non-commercial use. That may be relevant in computing damages, but often isn't. A few of the exceptions to copyright may apply in certain circumstances that include non-commercial use, but others apply in any kind of use.

Since no one in the US studies copyright law in their first year of law school, I wouldn't worry too much about what some 1L thinks.

Also I think your hypo with the photograph is wrong. First, 'embedding' is not a right of the copyright holder. Copying is, but in the case of embedding, the Coca-Cola company has not engaged in copying; only you and the end user have. Distribution is, but in the case of embedding, they're not distributing anything; you are, if anyone is. Public display is your best bet, but again, they're not the ones displaying it, you are. Your problem is that you have set up your server to accept requests from users who are not viewing your site, but who may be viewing some other site that is embedding an image from you. That's your fault, and within your control. Your failure to prevent it can be viewed as an implicit license for users to view that material, which kills any argument at direct, and therefore secondary, infringement.

As for the model release, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but certainly wouldn't come back against you.

Comment Re:Fair use (Score 1) 172

It would be fair use only if used infrequently. For example, if you want to quote someone else's article in your article, that's fair use. However, if your entire business is dependent upon making snippets from thousands of articles, that's no longer fair use, it's commercial use.

No, you're wrong.

First, fair use applies to both commercial and non-commercial uses. For example, when Mad Magazine did a movie parody, that would be fair use, even though the magazine us sold for an increasing cheap price and is a commercial venture.

Second, the previous poster didn't really explain it well. Fair use is when a copyrighted work is used without permission in a way that, but for fair use, would be infringing, but which is not infringing because it is in the general purpose of copyright to allow such a use. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and is completely fact dependent. This, any particular use might be a fair use, but not just any use actually is.

There's a test for finding out whether a use is fair or not. It has four factors, though it isn't a matter of adding up how many factors go one way or another, and depending on the case, one factor might be treated as outweighing another. Plus, it's just a tool; other factors can be considered too.

The factors are: 1) the purpose and character of the use, such as whether the use is for profit or not, whether the use would advance the progress of knowledge by resulting in something new or otherwise helpful; 2) the nature of the work being used, such as whether it is fictional and therefore very creative and worth protecting, or factual, and therefore not worth protecting quite so much (how a work presents itself is also often relevant in copyright; if you claim that something is a fact, even though it's made up or is just a hypothesis, others may get to treat it as a fact) as well as whether the work being used has already been published or not; 3) the amount of the work used, and how important to the work that portion is; and 4) whether the use will have a negative effect on the value or market for the work (positive effects are not considered).

Snippets of this type -- in aggregate, mind you -- have repeatedly been found to be fair use in the US because for the first factor, although the use is commercial in nature, it provides a benefit to society in being able to search for this material (which of course requires as much material as possible to be used in constructing the index, even though the index itself, as opposed to the results of a search, is not made available), the second factor may weigh against the use depending on the material being indexed, but it is not treated as being very important, obviously the whole work must be used to make the index for the index to be useful, so the third factor doesn't matter, and for the fourth factor, it doesn't harm the market for news articles to be able to find them and to see in one or two lines why they match your search terms. It doesn't matter if that's the business model.

And if you think this is extreme, look at time shifting, which is bad on all of the first three factors, but is sufficiently successful on the fourth so as to be fair use (in a general way, since again it is highly fact dependent)

Comment Re:Bad Idea #1 (Score 1) 674

Call it whatever you want. Apprentice/Master --- but there needs to be a way to differentiate - and thereby focus the work efforts. Master developers/designers need to be building a cohesive set of tools and a design that the Apprentice uses to get the job done.

An apprentice programmer should never be allowed to lead the design or implementation of a project - I don't care how many years they have with the company. Years of service does not equal quality of skill set. I've seen too many projects destroyed because the wrong people were in key positions in the team - and should not have been. The idea that every programmer is an interchangeable widget is a lie. If you are peddling that 'happy joy and rainbow land' view of the world - then you are part of the problem that I am talking about.

The truth is in the deliverables. Most of those deliverables are nowhere close to being right.

Comment Re:So sick of Patent Trolls (Score 1) 182

Your statement has no relevance to this story or the trial whatsoever. Oracle v. Google dealt with copyright and fair use. Patent abuse/trolling is an entirely different issue.

As for 'shaking up' Congress to fix the not-relevant-to-this issue, would you care to elaborate on what you've done in that regard?

Comment Bad Idea #1 (Score 1, Flamebait) 674

Allowing (or forcing) application programmers to do system programming. If your language forces the programmer to reinvent the wheel - he will invariably do it badly. The corollary to this: poor libraries/frameworks/abstractions built by aforementioned programmers then let bad programmers spread even more bad code.

This, by the way, is the source of all zero days.

If you have to do system programming - make sure you have a bona fide systems programmer - preferably who has a thorough understanding of secure programming - on the team; either as a reviewer, or designer.

Given that there aren't that many real system programmers out there - those that are should focus on building tools that keep application developers from shooting themselves in the foot (so they don't have to be there to keep the carnage from happening). In this instance, I am all for gun control. You don't give a child a loaded gun, and you shouldn't give an application programmer one either.

Comment Re:Pokemon Go to rake in nearly $13 Billion (Score 1) 79

Actually, you can earn multiples of 10 pokecoins per day. Every 21 hours, you can get 10 coins for every gym you control at the end of the 21-hour countdown timer. I've never managed to have more than 2 or 3 at a time when that happened, but I expect when I get some more powerful critters I'll be able to do better.

Submission + - EFF lawsuit seeks to overturn DMCA ban on breaking DRM

Robotech_Master writes: The EFF has just filed suit against the US government on the grounds that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provision, Section 1201, represents an unconstitutional restraint on free speech.

The suit takes aim at the practice of outlawing breaking DRM, with the Librarian of Congress permitted to make exceptions to the prohibition every three years, as well as outlawing any explanation of how to break DRM. The EFF calls this “an unconstitutional speech-licensing regime.”

This isn't the first time the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision has been called in to question. Earlier this year, Congress asked for public comments on ways to improve the anti-circumvention process.

Comment Which is more important: edge or app? (Score 1) 133

Huge efforts and money are spent protecting the edges of the network - whether it be firewalls and other router configurations, OS level configurations, and other filtering tools (such as virus detection and scanning, and log and packet inspection and analysis tools). There are also plenty of security companies willing to sell you a magical black box that will solve all of your security problems.

The opposite seems to be the case when it comes to spending time and money on the security of applications used by internal and external customers - either through retrofitting existing applications, or when building new applications. Companies don't want to spend money to retrofit sunk capital, and I don't see security firms talking about or creating tools and common standards for building new secure applications.

Given this dichotomy, do you think that is a correct characterization of the problem space, and do you think we are spending our time and money in the right places as a result?

Submission + - Whoever feels like innovating e-books, please raise your hand!

Robotech_Master writes: I keep seeing complaint after complaint that e-books are stuck in a rut, and nobody is interested in 'innovating.' Amazon tends to get the lion's share of blame for this, as they're the incumbent in the e-book market, but what's keeping its competitors from trying as well? A good innovation could be a competitive advantage against Amazon, after all.

It seems to me that we're not seeing any innovation because most consumers are perfectly happy with their ten-year-old Kindle e-book tech, and Amazon's competitors have effectively already thrown in the e-book towel. Anyone who tries to come up with something new runs into the roadblock that consumers don't want something new if it's not compatible with the e-reading tech they already have.

And yet, we still see all these people crying out for innovation, but no one actually making a move to innovate. Well, here's the bell, there's the cat; knock yourself out.

Comment This result isn't surprising... (Score 1) 143

Millennials are just starting in the workforce so they have much less to lose if they do get compromised. That also means that whatever setback occurs can be quickly recovered. While I can understand why they may not care now about exposure of their content and information today - that isn't to say that will be a constant throughout their lives.

Ask them the same question in 10 to 20 years and see what they say. If they have significant savings or other holdings that are compromised that took many years to acquire - or their credit gets trashed - you can bet they will change their answer. There may be edge cases - but the vast majority will have families, mortgages, and other issues that disruption through faulty security will be unacceptable.

Polls like this are of limited value unless you can look beyond the poll itself to what is really behind how people are responding. Don't fall for the hype. Be a critical thinker.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any given program will expand to fill available memory.

Working...