Xtra Smileys
[Open]
Flame Damnation
March 29, 2024, 05:42:16 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:   
 
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Login Register  

Intellectual Property A Silly Euphanism

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property A Silly Euphanism  (Read 159 times)
0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.
caskur™
Swing Voter
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11001


Tortured Artist


« on: October 14, 2008, 01:09:11 am »
Reply with quoteQuote


I think it fits the subject about plagiarism that the last posters in matches in the flame section emphasized....and also I did see a woman sue over some pictures of hers that were used in an advertisement in the USA, on the news, a few days ago....that case was settled out of court...This article explains a little of the history of "Intellectual Property" and provides some sound reasoning in my view....

What with the USA case, and the Scottish Schools kids successfully winning their case over their voices appearing on the Pink Floyd track, "Brick in the Wall".....will open the floodgates to more litigations? I hope not. There will be plenty of worried people walking around and the lawyers rubbing their grubby little greedy hands over the potential income, from all this...

Actually, I remember posting my chop of Sting in the famous bathtub floating near a tropical island, chop of mine and Prowler taking a shot at me, at my group Avant-garde philosophy, over it....since that picture was actually stolen from me in the first place by a poster named Grizz. Prowler thought it was his work...



  Damn, the author of that article needs to read Canada's new Bill C-61 that is coming our way soon. It would send him into paroxysms of anger unlike any ever before seen.

How are they going to "police" the point I just highlighted in large font?


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-61_(39th_Canadian_Parliament,_2nd_Session)

The proposed bill contains the following changes on what constitutes copyright infringement and what does not for personal use:[6]

Time shifting, limited format shifting, copying for personal use, and device transferring of media is legal as long as:
Citizens do not retain recorded programs for extended time
Are not backups of DVD's (can only be of videocassettes in format shifting).
Do not circumvent any and all "digital locks"
Transferring of media occurs only once per device owned by the purchaser of the original copy while retaining the original copy.
Are not of shows broadcast with "no recording" flags
Are not governed by any other clauses between the right holder and consumer (ex. Amazon's non-transferability clause, promotional use only, do not sell/transfer, etc.) [7]
Format shifting must comply with the twelve processes listed here (pdf) in addition to all other conditions listed. [8]



What are they going to do with all though pictures of people in crowds at football games appearing in newspapers?

  Precisely my point, which is why the author would go nuts reviewing this bill. It makes the American laws some complacent by comparison. And my fellow Canadians believed they live in a **** free society. I have known this was no such society since the age of 10, which is why I became a fascist.

  We all know there is no way to police the laws. Did you know that, if the bill passes, stripping simple DRM code out of a program would net you a $20,000 fine?




Referring back to artists like the article I posted…..during the middle ages and the time of the Renaissance painters, they often copied each other’s work, especially the female forms since it was very unlikely to actually get a female to pose naked…..if you look at the bodies of females in paintings, they’ve all got a similar shaped breasts….they remind me of male bodies, with **** and probably were….painting after painting, same female body with a face change….lol…the point is, the artists copied off each other and it was a regular practice.

Maybe God can sue people for copying his geographical features in drawings, paintings and photography.

I know a guy who closed down an M$N site that posted pictures of coffins on…..HE posted them on purpose firstly with the intent to shut the site down…. then contacted  M$N who told him to contact the makers of the coffins and tell them to make a complaint. When he did that, the Funeral Directors said they didn’t care and that foiled his attempt…. he then pretended to be the Funeral director and made a complaint to MSN by himself claiming to be the Funeral Director….eventually MSN caved in and shut the site down.

This is open to corruption from both sides of a dispute….why are bothering?
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site!
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy