I think I have to disagree w/ Mike's conclusion about the publisher's response.
While I think that the copyright on Calvin and Hobbes should have expired by now (the current copyright law being way too long) (because the 1st C&H was published in 1985 and the last in 1995), given Watterson's wishes and the fact that he still does have the copyright on C&H the publisher's response was the best response possible.
I also agree w/ Mike that having to go to court to affirm that your use is fair use is hurting the creation of new "culture".
I disagree w/ those who say that we should respect Watterson's desires, other than possibly granting a limited copyright (in my opinion somewhere from 5 to 20 years max) the creator has no inherent right to control how others use his creation. For example I find C&H makes great bathroom reading, if Watterson doesn't like that, too bad.
Re: Is this quote really in support of the actions?
Thank you, that's what I was about to say. I read the quotes above and nothing suggests that Boris is excusing the actions of the journalists, he is merely pointing out one potential explanation. At no point does he say that because the internet is eating into the traditional business that justifies the actions of the journalists, in fact he still refers to that behavior as "disgraceful".
I know patents like this get approved all the time, but I still don't understand. I thought that a patent was for an invention which someone in the field should be able to duplicate/build based on the information in the patent?!
detection facility 104 may analyze the received data utilizing one or more motion capture technologies, motion analysis technologies, gesture recognition technologies, facial recognition technologies, voice recognition technologies, acoustic source localization technologies, and/or any other suitable technologies to detect one or more actions
This reads more like an idea that enumerates a lot of other ideas on how the prime idea may be accomplished.
In my mind this is incredibly far from a concrete invention, and is an attempt to patent an idea.
you know, these discussions would be much more interesting w/o the personal attacks included (on both sides, btw). The AC started it, but responding almost always seems to make things worse.
I think the points raised are interesting enough w/o the attacks, and while neither of you may convince the other, w/o the attacks, perhaps you'd convince a lurker, or at least we'd be better informed.
Writing and taking notes is one of the major ways people learn. Just reading text is one of the hardest ways to actually retain anything.
I disagree w/ this, and I think in some ways this is the type of generalized thought that is what the article was warning against. I personally learn better just reading and not taking notes. Although again, different subjects will need different types of reinforcement.
Thanks for that! It was very funny, Carlin was a comedic genius.
And I do still believe in voting. And sometimes my individual voice added to others does make a difference, just not as often as I would like. (see the defeat of SOPA for 1 instance, I'm less sure about my vote for politicians).
OK, I've wanted to do exactly what you've described for quite a while.
I've just never had the energy/time to figure out what I needed to implement it.
It does seem that I would need a router that is supported by one of the alternate router software projects such as Tomato, dd-wrt, others I can't think of. And then I have to make sure that all the original features of the router that I need are still supported (in particular 1000Base-T routing).
If there were a site that walked through the various options to do this on different routers it would be great!
The biggest difference between the cop running a plate and the scanner IS the database.
The cop runs a plate, and either it is "of immediate interest" or not. If not the data (where that plate was when the cop ran it) is discarded probably pretty much immediately, but almost definitely it is not stored in a database.
The entire point of the scanner is to create the database and not to find a car "of immediate interest" because the scanner can't really do anything about that "immediate" interest.
I am strongly against the idea of a database of locations of cars, and I agree that it is a large invasion of privacy and I feel it is unconstitutional.
I haven't seen anyone here arguing that "we should" hold 3D printer manufacturers responsible, only that it is possible that "we will". In that I think it's a worthwhile point as I mentioned above, rational doesn't always enter into it (see all the crazy product disclaimers, such as trimming hedges w/ a lawnmower).
Thinking and discussing this now may help us avoid this w/ 3D printing.
Actually while I hope we avoid them, I think his concerns are valid and good to discuss. While I agree w/ the rational arguments against his point, remember lawnmowers have a disclaimer against using them to trim hedges.
What is rational and what people sue (And remarkably win?!!) about are very different things.
Somehow those numbers didn't seem to add up.
If $2 goes to the retail store and the material cost is $1 that leaves $12.
According to howstuffworks royalties are typically 8-25% of the retail price, which is $1.20-3.75. Also promotions and other expenses come out of the artists royalties, so that means the rest is the label's profit. That says the label is getting $8.25-10.80 profit from the sale of a $15 CD.
Umm, folks, while I don't agree with ANYTHING this post says, it does not deserve to be "reported". It is making the "counter" case and it deserves to be read and responded to.
This is not an inflammatory name calling post. While his post may not change my mind, and the counter posts may not change his, this is the type of post from those I disagree with that I would like to read on techdirt.
I am tempted to mark it as "insightful" because I think it should be read, but I can't quite do it because to me "insightful" just implies that I find the points made a reasonable interpretation of the facts, and I don't.