221–230 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you know that you can't use copyright to protect an algorithm?
But you can copyright the most efficient implementations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if making money is fun for you.
What if you can only have fun making the puppets while simultaneously murdering someone? Following your logic, Disney endorses murder. Complete nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. In any case, it is a matter of law, just like earlier, shorter copyright protections were. It's totally legitimate to favor shorter copyright, but essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. It strikes me as odd that you would be interested in applying the law fairly while also referring to the law as a perversio…
> There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. The public did not benefit in any way from its extension. Quite the opposite: every time the duration of copyright terms is extended, the public is robbed of its rights so that corporations which have already made billions off of their copyrighted works can make even more money. When was the last time some copyrighted work entered the public domain? P…
>When was the last time some copyrighted work entered the public domain?
January 1st, 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_public_domain
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The implementations are short and simple for easy reading, so they are not the most efficient or practical. Early versions of the code had bugs, so you should not use the old versions of the book.
The key is to do what Steven Muchnick did for his Compiler textbook: Write the algorithms in a made up programming language so no one can run them and find the bugs. I'm not being facetious, it's called ICAN, and as far as I can tell no compiler exists for it. Other than that it's a great book though, although maybe showing its age in that there isn't much discussion of OOO and ILP etc. And SSA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)#Hi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some would argue that the undefined duration does not match “limited times” and that the copyright is no longer “promoting useful arts”. While some of these questions have been answered in Disney’s favour in recent times, it is clear that the “matter of law” is anything but clear.
This was adjudicated up to the Supreme Court: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618 tl;dr: 7-2 as long as there is some type of time limitation, Congress is free to extend copyright terms.
At a rummage sale a few years ago, I bought a book published by Disney in the 1960s or 1970s which had instructions on how to make Mickey Mouse puppets. It also said to "have fun" making them. Selling things for a profit is a lot of fun. As far as I'm concerned, I now have a perpetual, transferable license to make and sell Mickey Mouse puppets. I even asked a lawyer.
This reminds me of a book called "numerical recipes in C", full of algorithms that were very useful except you couldn't really use them because the authors protected their use with a very restrictive license.
Not too long ago, a colleague asked me if I had a good code for linear regression, and I sent him a copy of the page from my undergraduate data analysis textbook, which had it in FORTRAN IV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow, to me, it's even slimier when it's a subset of posts is a targeted hijacking of an injoke made by fans for fans that predates their ownership of the property. It's not blanket maliciousness against all users, it's targeted maliciousness to steal from them.
What is Disney stealing in your mind? the tweets or the hashtag?
What happens if someone replies with IP not owned by Disney and they use it?
1) No one complains, Disney uses the content and life goes on.
2) Someone complains, Disney takes that tweet down and replaces it with a different tweet and life goes on.
Disney is not going to court over a tweet. They'll just take it down if someone complains.
Also, under copyright law Disney will not "own" any of the IP in these tweets, the question is whether they have a license to use it.
Yah, but WE'RE DISNEY