charlie hebdo Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members.
Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members.
In my example I didn't know that the text was stolen.
Of course, once I am informed of that fact I would be obligated to return the object or stop using the text/image.
In the case of a book that is out of print but still falls under copyright, I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply. The copyright holder should either make new copies available for sale, or after a shorter period of time (say, 5 years) the material becomes public domain.
Kind of like how mineral leases work (out here anyway), if the leaseholder does not develop the deposit in a timely manner then the lease reverts back to the government, who can then lease it to someone else. You can't just sit on the stuff forever.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply.
UP illustrates this well. They've been very protective of their own image and of the fallen flags they've absorbed. Hence the various tribute locomotives.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Sometimes it is ok to "borrow"
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3102291/china-us-tensions-video-pla-attack-pacific-airbase-uses
"The person, who asked not to be named, told the South China Morning Post that it was common practice for the PLA’s publicity department to “borrow” from Hollywood films to make their productions look more spectacular."
SD70Dude charlie hebdo Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members. In my example I didn't know that the text was stolen. Of course, once I am informed of that fact I would be obligated to return the object or stop using the text/image. In the case of a book that is out of print but still falls under copyright, I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply. The copyright holder should either make new copies available for sale, or after a shorter period of time (say, 5 years) the material becomes public domain. Kind of like how mineral leases work (out here anyway), if the leaseholder does not develop the deposit in a timely manner then the lease reverts back to the government, who can then lease it to someone else. You can't just sit on the stuff forever.
You might like the protection of intellectual property to be similar land use laws but they are not and IP is not analogous to your example. The land was government property originally. Intellectual property is by definition, an original creation by the right's holder.
Lithonia OperatorDoes anyone really think that the day after Elvis died, people should have been able to take his records, dub them onto tape, then sell them? Or give them away?
Certainly not, but we have to differentiate between Elvis the man and Elvis the business. Once he died Elvis was beyond caring what happened to his work. Elvis the business was another matter, that's the estate in action, and of course they want to make all the money they can before all the hard-core fans of "The King" die off and subsequent generations could care less who Elvis was.
Can't blame them, the clock keeps ticking and the calender pages keep turning and no power on earth can stop them.
Oh, and on the PLA pirating film clips? American filmmakers probably consider that just a hidden cost of doing business with China. They make big money on the Chinese market so they're not likely to get bent out of shape over film clips of a few seconds duration being used without permission or pay.
charlie hebdo SD70Dude charlie hebdo Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members. In my example I didn't know that the text was stolen. Of course, once I am informed of that fact I would be obligated to return the object or stop using the text/image. In the case of a book that is out of print but still falls under copyright, I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply. The copyright holder should either make new copies available for sale, or after a shorter period of time (say, 5 years) the material becomes public domain. Kind of like how mineral leases work (out here anyway), if the leaseholder does not develop the deposit in a timely manner then the lease reverts back to the government, who can then lease it to someone else. You can't just sit on the stuff forever. You might like the protection of intellectual property to be similar land use laws but they are not and IP is not analogous to your example. The land was government property originally. Intellectual property is by definition, an original creation by the right's holder.
If the copyright holder is not earning revenue from something they hold, or from licensing it to others who might earn revenue for the both of them, why should they have a right to keep it hidden away? Use it or lose it.
This example would probably end up mainly applying in cases of books etc that would not earn much revenue anyway, if they were profitable to publish or license (electronically or in print) wouldn't the copyright holder be doing so?
Originally, copyright wasn't even guaranteed to last the entire life of the creator, but it has been lengthened over and over again as the years gone by. It could be argued that some of that was necessary, but I think the current regulations go too far, and were created at the behest of big media companies who wish to continue surviving off of things from the distant past. And I fully expect the copyright term to be further lengthened in the future.
I think we also have a real problem with so-called patent and copyright trolls, who will purchase the rights to something and then try to track down and sue small-time individual users, many of whom may not have known that they were committing a violation.
Or they may be in the right but cannot easily prove it, and find it easier to 'feed the troll' to make it go away.
By analogy based on some of the prior posts, if a person owns a vacant lot and just lets it sit vacant for a number of years, then squatters should be allowed to take possession of the lot. Intellectual property is no different than real property.
CSSHEGEWISCH By analogy based on some of the prior posts, if a person owns a vacant lot and just lets it sit vacant for a number of years, then squatters should be allowed to take possession of the lot. Intellectual property is no different than real property.
Physical property and intellectual property are different things.
A landowner also has the responsibility to maintain their property and any buildings on it to certain standards, not to mention paying property taxes. If they fail to do so the municipality can seize it.
Abandoned physical properties have become a real problem in some places, like Detroit.
Fun fact: intellectual property rights were even mentioned in the US Consitution.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Just a bunch of law breaking thieves with no respect for intellectual property, even though it is in our Constitution. Maybe it's not in the Canadian one?
charlie hebdo Just a bunch of law breaking thieves with no respect for intellectual property, even though it is in our Constitution. Maybe it's not in the Canadian one?
Them's fightin words. I challenge thee to a duel!
(isn't that how things were settled back when the constitution was written?)
Q.E.D.
You know if certain people hadn't felt they were above the law, they could have simply linked the texts or photos from the original sources or summarized with a full citation.
Don't worry, copyright law exists in Canada, we're a civilized frozen wasteland. Our term is 50 years after the death of the creator, which I still think is far too long.
Looks like we've been committing IP piracy since long before it was cool. Don't worry, I got this image from Wikipedia, which states it is public domain in the U.S:
charlie hebdo they could have simply linked the texts or photos from the original sources or summarized with a full citation.
Here's the nub of the problem: The "average bear" doesn't know this.
SD70Dude Don't worry, copyright law exists in Canada, we're a civilized frozen wasteland. Our term is 50 years after the death of the creator, which I still think is far too long. Looks like we've been committing IP piracy since long before it was cool. Don't worry, I got this image from Wikipedia, which states it is public domain in the U.S:
Well, somebody should have gotten suspicious when they heard this drifting over the border:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f9ehaNlA4
ARRRRR!!!
Flintlock76 Well, somebody should have gotten suspicious when they heard this drifting over the border: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f9ehaNlA4 ARRRRR!!!
ARrrrrrrrrrrg!
There is a whole lot of FLAT in the background in every direction pictured.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Flintlock76 Well, somebody should have gotten suspicious when they heard this drifting over the border: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f9ehaNlA4 ARRRRR!!! ARrrrrrrrrrrg! There is a whole lot of FLAT in the background in every direction pictured.
You can watch your dog run away all week!
Unfortunately for CN and CP, our prairies are far from perfectly flat. There is a lot of undulating territory and some surprisingly steep grades, especially in and out of river valleys.
SD70Dude BaltACD Flintlock76 Well, somebody should have gotten suspicious when they heard this drifting over the border: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f9ehaNlA4 ARRRRR!!! ARrrrrrrrrrrg! There is a whole lot of FLAT in the background in every direction pictured. You can watch your dog run away all week! Unfortunately for CN and CP, our prairies are far from perfectly flat. There is a lot of undulating territory and some surprisingly steep grades, especially in and out of river valleys.
Water level grades can be really significant - most railroads were laid out following water level as best they could - going from 3000 feet to sea level creates a real grade. B&O's grades West of Cumberland followed rivers and streams as best they could and ended up with Sand Patch, 17 Mile and Cranberry grades.
NKP guy charlie hebdo they could have simply linked the texts or photos from the original sources or summarized with a full citation. Here's the nub of the problem: The "average bear" doesn't know this.
Given their positions, both of them did or certainly should have.
charlie hebdo NKP guy charlie hebdo they could have simply linked the texts or photos from the original sources or summarized with a full citation. Here's the nub of the problem: The "average bear" doesn't know this. Given their positions, both of them did or certainly should have.
I'll agree with you on that point.
"we have to differentiate between Elvis the man and Elvis the business. Once he died Elvis was beyond caring what happened to his work."
"Estate" sounds impersonal, but in most cases it basically means "family." If you have a profitable car-repair business (you own the building too), and you die, it passes on to whomever YOU (in your will) designate, not to any Tom Dick or Harry. Or if your estate is worth $500,000, and you have 5 kids, YOU can say each gets $100K.
"If the copyright holder is not earning revenue from something they hold, or from licensing it to others who might earn revenue for the both of them, why should they have a right to keep it hidden away?"
If, in the case above, one heir inherits the car repair business, but just lets it sit there unused, this does not give other people the right to break in and repair their cars there. Or sieze the property.
In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of the work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embedded in law and custom worldwide.
The Internet brought with it a whole culture of "man, it's just sitting there, I can take it." In a clothing store, the sweaters are just sitting there. The only difference is that store security is WAY better than Internet security.
Lithonia OperatorThe Internet brought with it a whole culture of "man, it's just sitting there, I can take it." In a clothing store, the sweaters are just sitting there. The only difference is that store security is WAY better than Internet security.
I guess in many ways, the pirates have similarities with looters? Some do it out of a feeling of necessity, some do it just because it's available, while others see themselves as making a political statement through the act.....
Lithonia OperatorIn the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide.
Until Disney gets it extended again.
Lithonia Operator "we have to differentiate between Elvis the man and Elvis the business. Once he died Elvis was beyond caring what happened to his work." "Estate" sounds impersonal, but in most cases it basically means "family." If you have a profitable car-repair business (you own the building too), and you die, it passes on to whomever YOU (in your will) designate, not to any Tom Dick or Harry. Or if your estate is worth $500,000, and you have 5 kids, YOU can say each gets $100K. "If the copyright holder is not earning revenue from something they hold, or from licensing it to others who might earn revenue for the both of them, why should they have a right to keep it hidden away?" If, in the case above, one heir inherits the car repair business, but just lets it sit there unused, this does not give other people the right to break in and repair their cars there. Or sieze the property. In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide. The Internet brought with it a whole culture of "man, it's just sitting there, I can take it." In a clothing store, the sweaters are just sitting there. The only difference is that store security is WAY better than Internet security.
In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide.
As I've said, physical property and intellectual property are different things. The law recognizes this, there of course is no time limit on the ownership of physical property.
But in the case of land and buildings you do have certain obligations, and if you fail to follow them the municipality can eventually decide that you should no longer have ownership of that property.
I'm not disputing the reality of the current copyright laws, and I obey them. When I post stuff here or on any other site it is usually as links to whatever site I found it on. But I do think the current IP rights protection system reaches much farther than it should.
The purpose of copyright and patents should be to allow creators to support themselves and benefit from their creations, but this should only last for a reasonable time, not closer to forever like it does now (anything longer than a human lifespan may as well be forever from any individual's point of view).
Instead of comparing copying a photo or writing to the theft of a shirt, I would say it is more akin to copying the sewing patterns and producing your own shirt of the exact same dimensions and material.
Here's a case that I think illustrates the rationale behind my "use it or lose it" point. Also note that I only posted the link, not any text from the article, and it is not behind a paywall:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/copyright-law-repair-manuals-circular-economy
zugmann Lithonia Operator In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide. Until Disney gets it extended again.
Lithonia Operator In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide.
Exactly!
SD70DudeHere's a case that I think illustrates the rationale behind my "use it or lose it" point.
I could easily see why tech companies don't want the liability can cracked even the least little bit open. crApple went so far as to start using weird proprietary screws and excessive glue to keep people out of their stuff, spawning some frankly fascinating back-door ways to get in; then restricted access to parts until a whole industry of coin-operated machines giving cell-phone thieves an unlimited mechanical fence for a few pennies on the dollar produced open parts availability... then said aftermarket parts make the whole device unqualified for any further crApple repairs until all the non-factory parts were replaced, essentially in defiance of settled precedent in the automotive and some other consumer industries.
What should be the right way a company should handle the manuals and procedures reserved to its 'skilled professional repair partners'? How should this change when -- as is the case today -- a company like crApple decides to stop providing any factory support to a product... but continues to be dog-in-the-manger with resources. (Heck, the Antichrist of software licensing, Microsoft, set up free access for versions of Office and OS versions requiring online activation when those programs reached end of support).
Overmod SD70Dude Here's a case that I think illustrates the rationale behind my "use it or lose it" point. Actually, the problem is a part of the current 'right to repair' legislation now going on (pushed as you'd expect by lobbyists for the storefront electronics-repair industry; resisted by the criPhones-just-wear-out-and-you-have-to-buy-new-ones criminals) but there is a deeper issue, one intimately related with a different aspect of American criminality and probably only addressable through tort reform. If someone follows a downloaded factory manual that contains a mistake and ruins what he's working on, can he sue for damages? If he electrocutes himself can he say the 'no user-serviceable parts inside' sort of exception doesn't apply because he had a factory manual from the factory? Remember there were folks who sued Ford and Firestone over the former putting 120mph speedometers in top-heavy vehicles and the latter being deemed to imply their 721 series was qualified to go that speed by knowingly supplying them to Ford to put on a 120mph vehicle.
SD70Dude Here's a case that I think illustrates the rationale behind my "use it or lose it" point.
Actually, the problem is a part of the current 'right to repair' legislation now going on (pushed as you'd expect by lobbyists for the storefront electronics-repair industry; resisted by the criPhones-just-wear-out-and-you-have-to-buy-new-ones criminals) but there is a deeper issue, one intimately related with a different aspect of American criminality and probably only addressable through tort reform. If someone follows a downloaded factory manual that contains a mistake and ruins what he's working on, can he sue for damages? If he electrocutes himself can he say the 'no user-serviceable parts inside' sort of exception doesn't apply because he had a factory manual from the factory? Remember there were folks who sued Ford and Firestone over the former putting 120mph speedometers in top-heavy vehicles and the latter being deemed to imply their 721 series was qualified to go that speed by knowingly supplying them to Ford to put on a 120mph vehicle.
If you're speeding you're speeding, and it's your fault. My small SUV has a speedometer that reads far higher than it is actually capable of going on level ground (yes I tried, and yes, I was speeding and if I'd crashed it would have been my own fault), and it also contains warning stickers to not drive excessively fast around corners.
If the factory manual contains a mistake wouldn't that affect licensed repair facilities as well? And any manufacturer with a legal department worth any salt will stuff the manuals chock full of disclaimers and warnings.
If I hurt myself, say, not wearing gloves or glasses while repairing my chainsaw, can I sue Husqvarna for damages?
Overmod I could easily see why tech companies don't want the liability can cracked even the least little bit open. crApple went so far as to start using weird proprietary screws and excessive glue to keep people out of their stuff, spawning some frankly fascinating back-door ways to get in; then restricted access to parts until a whole industry of coin-operated machines giving cell-phone thieves an unlimited mechanical fence for a few pennies on the dollar produced open parts availability... then said aftermarket parts make the whole device unqualified for any further crApple repairs until all the non-factory parts were replaced, essentially in defiance of settled precedent in the automotive and some other consumer industries. What should be the right way a company should handle the manuals and procedures reserved to its 'skilled professional repair partners'? How should this change when -- as is the case today -- a company like crApple decides to stop providing any factory support to a product... but continues to be dog-in-the-manger with resources. (Heck, the Antichrist of software licensing, Microsoft, set up free access for versions of Office and OS versions requiring online activation when those programs reached end of support).
Didn't Torx start out as a tamper-proof fastener system? How long did that last?
Probably the most egregious "right to repair" case is that of John Deere. I mean, what kind of IDIOT would tell farmers that they aren't allowed to fix their own tractors!?
SD70DudeProbably the most egregious "right to repair" case is that of John Deere. I mean, what kind of IDIOT would tell farmers that they aren't allowed to fix their own tractors!?
I think Tesla may be getting more known for that.
Even other manufactures are toying with ideas of disabling features of cars if you don't subscribe, or get a new lease or whatever.
The problem with speedometers came out of a clever use of the idea of implied warranty: if you amplifier knob goes to 10, it's presumed safe that you can turn it there; if the speedometer says 120 not only should you be able to run it there, you might be motivated to sue if the vehicle can't actually go that fast (shades of EMD complaining about the original Charger procurement!). In California in the mid-Nineties a law form actually started a class-action suit because most exercise free weights don't measure precisely what is stamped on or molded into them.
SD70dudeIf the factory manual contains a mistake wouldn't that affect licensed repair facilities as well?
Of course the issue since at least the '70s has been what is NOT in the manuals; the precedent set by the moron using his mower as a hedge trimmer was in no small part based on the manual not telling him not to. Factory tech manuals aren't going to waste time repeatedly warning about shock or ESD or swallowing small parts, and very likely won't have warnings about how to read a schematic, contain detail about when to use common-sense replacements for factory parts, feature long safety discussions in every mL or procedure, etc.
We actually were named in a tragic personal-injury case where a child had debilitating brain injury from being hit riding an ATV we had sold. The father when he bought it insisted on the very cheapest helmet in the store, but that didn't stop his lawyer trying to deep-pockets us "in part for not talking him into a more capable type or refusing the sale". The mere letter of the law helps no more with PPE than it does with effective face masks for COVID-19...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.