Finally, a good example of the usage of trademarks as a mark of origin and trust. Even though I disagree with the other restrictions that Mozilla places on its trademark usage (e.g. not allowing free-software derivatives of Firefox to use its trademark, to the point that the IceWeasel and Icecat projects had to be created as a direct result), in this case they're totally correct into claiming it as a case of deluding unaware users, tricking them into trusting a product masquerading as a privacy-protecting program.
The best effort done towards making the cloud work for its users has been the federated social network, where anyone can host a local version of the network and communicate with other servers with only knowing the address to point at. Status.Net, Diaspora, Friendica, Pump.IO, just to name a few recent examples.
Mar 18th, 2013 @ 9:45pm
Re: Sweet!(as Carlos Solís a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I)
I'd go for the one that runs on GNU/Linux-libre. Except that, of course, it would take five years to gain support for eye vision.
If we take into account that there is at least one country (Mexico) where the copyright of the Sherlock Holmes' series as a whole is still standing until at least 2031 (100 years after the death of the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), then the defense of Doyle's estate can allege that Klinger and King are infringing in at least one country, which will grant them 8 more years than the estate claims!
Feb 6th, 2013 @ 8:43pm
Re:(as Carlos Solís a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I)
The Free Cultural Works Definition declared non-commercial licenses as non-free for a good reason.
Jan 19th, 2013 @ 11:40am
Re: Re:(as Carlos Solís a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I)
At least the licensing conflict between the copyrighted songs and your former license has been lifted. But, the film as a whole is still fully copyrighted. I remember that there was a plan to crowdfund the purchase of the worldwide license of the songs; is that still on the works?
Jan 15th, 2013 @ 5:23pm
Re: Re: Re:(as Carlos Solís a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I)
Exactly. And for the lyrics and tune to be in the worldwide public domain, we must wait not 70, but 100 years after the death of the last among McCartney, Starr and all other authors. Which means that, unless the average lifespan increases dramatically, we won't be able to live the day when the aforementioned song enters the true public domain.
Dec 5th, 2012 @ 12:33pm
Incongruence?(as Carlos Solís a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I)
"Jerry Brito [...] was publishing a book about the "free market case for copyright reform," called Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess. [...] They also have a free chapter available on the site."
Wait... do you mean that a book about the excesses of copyright is itself copyrighted?
The entertainment industry is, perhaps, the only economic field where their leaders expect a large portion of their potential clients to not "consume their content" if they're unable to meet their demands. Heck, they even routinely blame them for not having the "fortitude to cope" with the unavailability of their favorite show, instead of, you know, actually expanding their market and making their productions more readily available.
If I ever make a copyleft music album or movie, the first thing I'll do is to burn a few hundred copies, wrap them in the simplest covers I can find, place some contact information, and sell them cheap to some street sellers so they can resell them. Best. Self-promotion. Ever.
The comment from Chris Dodd might have been completely biased, but at least it did show a good point: most people on the internet wouldn't fear to be "stolen" of their ideas if there were no copyright laws. In the not-so-ancient times of about 250 years ago, retransmission and derivation of works were seen as completely normal within the artistic circles. Shakespeare, to put a famous example, would have done little without drawing ideas from the works of other artists and writers, both contemporary and ancient. And nobody treated him like a thief, more like a very creative writer of what we would name today as fan-fiction.
But now, just check any online gallery. DeviantArt, YouTube, SoundCloud to give just a few examples. A sizeable quantity of artists decide to slap a copyright notice that explicitly prevents anybody else to copy, reupload, sell or remix any part of the work in any shape of form (sometimes with almost those literal words). Why do they do that? Fear of having their work plagiarized? Fear of not being able to earn money out of their works (even though most of such artists never profit from them anyway)? Whatever the reason, they wouldn't fear if the artistic circle promoted derivation and sharing instead of repressing it as vehemently as possible.