Is it possible to make copyright be an opt-in system, not opt-out? The vast majority of all that content is not going to be monetized or whatever purpose copyright is supposed to serve (seriously).
There may be a small amount that feel they should be entitled to a copyright, and should thus declare ahead of time the copyright (in detail?). And it should be a process that takes effort to go through (registering your twitter account - for example - as a copyright protected item with the copyright office) to prevent people just blanket protecting every last instagram of their lunch.
As long as the product placement is subtle (no, having a future Will Smith have an odd desire to wear "vintage" Nike shoes isn't subtle) and not blatant, I don't care if that is the funding model. Have the characters drink a coke (you don't need the label perfectly 100% turned to the camera, guys, nobody drinks like THAT) if you want. During the conversation in the store, have them throw a Doritoes bag in the cart, ok.
My family just took a trip from Utah to California. Not only did they inspect both bags both times (we're still at 100% inspection rate), but the locks were cut on the way back. They left a slip indicating they had to cut off the TSA-APPROVED lock in order to get in there.
Yeah, I understand the confusion. Fox news is the 24/7, fox-branded, news-only channel. You were probably thinking of the local fox "affiliate" in your area that is broadcast over the air for free. This channel often has a morning/evening news segment, but also has other shows like Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.
Ironically enough - despite them being free over the air - local channels charge re-broadcasters like Dish a large amount to be able to show these local channels to their subscribers. And implement strict rules on ensuring ONLY the people in the area normally covered by the over-the-air signal can get the rebroadcasted signal from the satellite.
I'd been hit by the FBI virus years ago. It brought up a full screen program that wouldn't let me access control panel or anything else. I got around it by figuring out that it took a few seconds to pop up when I changed users. That was enough time to bring up control panel and kill the process before it fully launched and locked it down again.
Pretty old virus, actually. Funny how our government demands payment in untraceable money orders.
I think the problem needs to be looked at as whether the general idea of a character can be copyrighted, or the specific implementation of it. Basically, is the copyright on the specific books expired (leading to the ability for anyone to "copy" and print out their own copies with maybe slight changes in cover art and shapes), or has the copyright on the character itself expired.
If the latter, then this case is null, and anyone can make any stories they damned well please despite the fact that the original author made another book with it's own copyright.
Easy enough to put vent holes near the bottom of the can so there won't be a vacuum cause by the bag being removed. Or, alternately, rather than lift the can over the bag, make it so the can has a large door in the side to take it out that way.
I don't see what the smart can's point is, unless there are people unable to lift ~3 pounds of bag high above their heads. If that is the case, lifting the can isn't much better. Side doors, people!
You know, I see that there is sort of a problem here. It's vague, but I can see how an owner of a software who has their product "named" (slightly) in a movie can have an issue. If people (like me) hear the name and then go out and find there IS a software program called Clean Slate, I might associate the capabilities in the movie with the real program.
Wouldn't be the first time someone used a real-world program in a movie - *cough product placement *cough* - to show off the capability. After the movie, I might have an unrealistic expectation of the software's capability.
But then, I graduated from kindergarten and didn't believe they had anything to do with each other, so I never thought about it again.
Where I work, I came across a guy named James Bond III. Indicating that not only is there a James Bond out there (COPYRIIIIIIIIIGHT!) but that there are at least 2 more of them too. Are THEY denied passport applications because their name is too similar to one under copyright?
What about anyone with the last name Simpson (another I see often)? The idea that someone adopts -as their middle name no less - a single name from a fictional character in a fictional movie and this is cause for alarm to anybody just amazes me. You pick a name, and someone somewhere has it naturally.
Heck my friend gave their daughter the middle name "Cortana". Is Microsoft going to deny her driver's license now?
I think what we need to focus on is not whether particular books are in the public domain, but rather the concept itself of a British PI names Sherlock Holmes being in the public domain. A particular book may or may not be in the public domain depending on publication date, but that should have absolutely no relation to someone else making a different story involving the character.
If we can establish that the general idea/concept of a character can't be copyrighted (or if it is, when it expires), we should then apply that to every single other icon we can find.
It was the particular case that I based my rant on, in fact. I don't have a recent iPhone (my current is a hand-me-down and was free, the only reason I use it), so it hasn't affected me personally. But the massive number of cables I keep near my bed in case I need to charge a device.
Standardization is one of the greatest things that can possibly happen to nearly every industry. Imagine if we standardized power charging cables; no longer would you need to have your ipad charging cable, your new iphone charging cable, your kindle fire charging cable, your 3DS charging cable, and more. As long as the equipment is designed to charge off of the same power levels, there is no reaosn to have a separate brick for charging one device and another.
Instead, we get companies sitting on their own tiny islands, with hardware specifically made for their devices. They claim otherwise, but it's USUALLY so they can charge high prices for equipment that cost them pennies to make since they have a monopoly on their parts. Heck, apple CHECKS to make sure you aren't using an unauthorized CHARGING cable, and refuses to charge if it's not licensed (as in, they pay a fee to apple for each sold).
Well, rant over. I highly approve of Musk's plan here to open up their tech. It will destroy one big barrier to a nation-wide adoption of electric car infrastructure. Now, all we need is a cheap, powerful alternative/upgrade to batteries, and we are set.
I say, if they cannot show official ACCURATE representation of what happened in there (either by a stenographer or a recording) then it didn't happen. Nothing found or used in it (and I feel ALL FBI interrogations too) can be used for anything.