https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

A long-awaited copyright thaw begins on New Years Day

After the last Disney-sponsored throttling of creative works passing from copyright status in the US to the public domain, we've had a freeze on such things, with anything published after 1922 being still deemed under copyright, with all the restrictions for use and re-use that carries. That happened in 1998, well before the revolutions in Internet search and online data came about.

As of 1 January 2019, though, works from 1923 will finally enter the public domain, with more to follow over the coming years.

'We can blame Mickey Mouse for the long wait. In 1998, Disney was one of the loudest in a choir of corporate voices advocating for longer copyright protections. At the time, all works published before January 1, 1978, were entitled to copyright protection for 75 years; all author’s works published on or after that date were under copyright for the lifetime of the creator, plus 50 years. Steamboat Willie, featuring Mickey Mouse’s first appearance on screen, in 1928, was set to enter the public domain in 2004. At the urging of Disney and others, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named for the late singer, songwriter and California representative, adding 20 years to the copyright term. Mickey would be protected until 2024—and no copyrighted work would enter the public domain again until 2019, creating a bizarre 20-year hiatus between the release of works from 1922 and those from 1923.'

I do believe that creators should have the rights to and profits from their creative works, and be able to sell those rights as well. But the current situation has been a bizarre extension of protection, not for the creators and their immediate heirs, but for corporate IP owners (such as Disney) that worry what will happen once their long-term characters stop being their exclusive property and cash cow. Short of another drive to further extend copyright protection (something that cannot be discounted), it will be interesting to see what becomes freed up for public consumption and reuse in the coming years.




For the First Time in More Than 20 Years, Copyrighted Works Will Enter the Public Domain
A beloved Robert Frost poem is among the many creations that are (finally) losing their protections in 2019

Original Post

The US Public Domain floodgates prepare to open

It’s hard to believe that the major media companies will actually let things start sliding into the public domain again on 1 January 2019. But is there any desire or will in Congress to protect Big Media right now? (This may be the sole tarnished silver lining of having the GOP in charge, given that the Dems have tended to be more Big Media-friendly.)

Here’s hoping the past starts being accessible again.




A Mass of Copyrighted Works Will Soon Enter the Public Domain – The Atlantic
For the first time in two decades, a huge number of books, films, and other works will escape U.S. copyright law.

View on Google+

As the world shifts to streaming “licensed” material

Once upon a time, you bought records. The tapes (of various sorts). Then CDs.

You bought the music and, beyond certain laws against using it for a public performance, it was yours: tangible, possessable, loanable.

(Of course, if you lost the CD, or the LP got a bad scratch on it, you were SOL. So there was that down side.)

The rise of online music services created — for a time — a hybrid model. You could buy stuff, but that stuff could be kept online. No need to download it. Heck, if you already had music files, you could upload them to those services.

Gradually, those services started pushing streaming content — you don’t “own” the music, you pay for a period of access to a library of music. Once you stop paying, you can’t listen.

There was still a hybrid model, though — the streaming services (we’ll tag the main ones as iTunes, Google Music, and Amazon music) let you upload the MP3 files you owned, and you could listen to them (or the matched tracks from the streaming service), and you could (for a monthly fee) access the streaming service as well.

Now that model is beginning to fade, as Amazon announces that it will stop letting you upload music to its Amazon Music servers; you’ll still have access (when that goes into effect) to music you bought at Amazon, or, of course, to the Amazon streaming service.

It is probably incredibly Luddite to me that I still prefer knowing that I have my own, personal copy of my music files, not contingent on Amazon (or whomever) staying in business, or not changing the terms of the streaming agreement. But by a wild coincidence I was looking today at options for music access on family mobile phones (given our own internal, weird music setup of physical files, iPods, etc.), and had decided to go with Google vs Amazon as the streaming / connecting / music site of choice.

If I had any doubts about it, Amazon just settled them.




Amazon Music removes ability to upload MP3s, will shutter storage service
Take some time to re-download all those tracks you previously uploaded.

View on Google+

And a few odd thoughts about the Disney/Fox Merger Thing

Mostly having to do with Fox properties that will now suddenly be owned by Disney.

First off: we have the prospect of More Disney Princesses, per the EW article below. That includes folk like Anastasia, Neytiri, and (not pictured below) … Ellen Ripley [1]?

And since The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was done by Fox, that means Susan and Lucy Pevensie could be Disney Princesses, too. And the Tilda Swinton’s White Witch can hang out with Maleficent over on the Disney Villain side of things.

Speaking of Neytiri … okay, this transaction certainly puts an interesting new spin on the new Avatar Land at Walt Disney World Animal Kingdom — financially, if not creatively.

Looking at movie properties and franchises a bit more in-depth, Chris Evans is already floating the idea of a Captain America / Human Torch buddy movie, with him playing / reprising both roles.

I am very much hoping that this doesn’t mean Alvin and the Chipmunks coming to Disneyland.

Also noted: the idea that maybe Dr. Frank N Furter could become a Disney Princess, too.

All of this depends on the Justice Dept. giving the okay to the merger. That could be an interesting set of discussions, too, esp. given the Murdoch family’s involvement, and part of the company they’re not selling off: Fox News.

——

[1] The argument being that if Mulan can be a princess, so can another kickass female warrior. Ripley didn’t get an Emperor to bow down before he, but she did kill a Queen.




11 characters who are now technically Disney princesses
Disney’s over-$52 billion purchase of 20th Century Fox assets means a brand new pantheon of characters have entered the House…

View on Google+

When Marvel Universes Collide!

This article gets a little breathlessly geeky in places, but there’s no doubt that the folk running Marvel Pictures right now are salivating over finally getting their hands on the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises — heroes and villains alike.

If they follow their pattern, we’ll see stand-alone films there before any serious integration with the rest of the MCU, though cameos are possible, a la Spider-Man in Civil War. And that’s fine — fitting them into phase 4 and phase 5 is going to be tricky enough without moving too fast.

This also gives Marvel/Disney some greater flexibility with their original core heroes aging out or retiring from their roles. “What the heck do we do with the Avengers if Iron Man, Cap, Thor, and Hulk are all gone?” is a little less urgent a question when there are these additional characters to play with.

For me, what I’m most looking forward to is Ike Perlmutter and Marvel Comics deciding it’s okay to have a Fantastic Four comic book again. The FF’s substantive absence from the Marvel Universe has been unusually refreshing in some ways, but knowing it was driven by Perlmutter not wanting to promote characters showing up in Fox movies was particularly maddening. Those days should be drawing to a close soon.




The X-Men, the Avengers, the Merger, and What It’ll Mean

View on Google+

Why are we now getting a “Lord of the Rings” TV series?

Because Christopher Tolkien, at 93, has retired from his role as the (very, very strict) gatekeeper of J R R Tolkien’s literary estate.

I’m torn on this, because Christopher has been notoriously restrictive of any use of his father’s stories, to the point of their being choked off to just a few adaptations over the 4+ decades since his father’s death in 1973. Indeed, only 1960s contracts for movie rights, bandied about the legalsphere for years, allowed for the Peter Jackson movies to be created, for example — movies which Christopher apparently despised.

And that’s where the “torn” comes in, for while the Tolkien Estate has been so strict, it’s also thus prevented dilution of the property through a variety of bad adaptations.

It’s a dilemma — the value of the literary estate, indeed even the public knowledge and appreciation of the estate, depends to a large degree on how that estate can be further presented to new generations. But to do so runs the risk of creating something that devalues the property.

On the other hand, great works can overcome bad adaptations. There have been a lot of bad Shakespeare stage productions, and movies and TV adaptations, but the Bard lives on. More proximately, decades of third-rate movie and TV adaptations of Marvel’s works didn’t destroy the comics, and also didn’t prevent a set of highly successful movies being made of them.

Indeed, one could argue quite successfully that Peter Jackson’s LotR and even his Hobbit trilogy have reintroduced JRRT’s works to people who would never otherwise have heard of them.

Christopher Tolkien has done a remarkable job in curating and fleshing out his father’s writings, almost to a fault. If his passing the torch means that the world his father can be created can be explored by more creators, I think it worth the risk.




In historic move, Christopher Tolkien resigns as director of Tolkien Estate
It turns out a “Lord of the Rings” TV series isn’t the biggest Tolkien news of the week or the month or the year. Christopher Tolkien, son and literary heir of J.R.R. Tolkien, res…

View on Google+

This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

Because people figure out ways for crazy intellectual property law suits about them.

Hasbro, I have no doubt that “Bumblebee” is a very popular Transformer. I also have no doubt that you expect a Bumblebee solo movie to make oodles of money. Go have at it.

But none of that affects DC’s character, Bumblebee, one of (if not the) first African-American heroes the company created, back in the 1970s for the Teen Titans, several years before the Transformers were even created. She’s been around in the comics on and off since then, and showed up in the excellent Teen Titans cartoon.

And even if you, somehow, managed to trademark the name “Bumblebee” (yeesh), I seriously doubt anyone is going to confuse a black woman who can shrink with a giant robot that can turn into a car. Any more than people who are looking for Transformers swag will inadvertently buy cans of Bumblebee Tuna.

Yeesh.

(I wasn’t able to find the actual trademark application involved, though this mid-2000s one was abandoned by Hasbro. It was for “toy action figures, toy vehicles and toy robots convertible into other visual toy forms.” Another one Hasbro successfully put in for “Bee Vision” covers “Toy masks; role-play toys; toy action figures, toy vehicles and toy robots convertible into other visual toy forms”)




Hasbro Files Suit Against DC Comics Over ‘Bumblebee’ Trademark
Two superhero franchises are about to square off in federal court over the right to market “Bumblebee” toys. Hasbro, owner of the Transformers brand, filed a lawsuit on Monday accusing …

View on Google+

Patents, profits, and pot

The gradual but (to my mind) inexorable spread of legalized marijuana is going to generate business white papers for decades. Here we have a product that was widespread but utterly covert in production, slowly but surely becoming legal and accepted — and the various vices of modern American business, from intellectual property spats to corporate take-overs, are suddenly intersecting with a bunch of folk who range from sleepy growers to criminal drug-producers.

My prediction is that in 20-30 years, pot as an industry will resemble the alcohol industry: multi-national manufacturers and holding companies dominating the business and gobbling up smaller firms; craft artisans creating local reputations and then either selling out or struggling to stay afloat; debates over "Big Pot" hiding the effects of marijuana; PSAs about same; blue laws making marijuana more (or less) legally available to people in various states, with appropriately weird restrictions ("may be sold at gas stations, but not on Sunday").

Interesting times to watch.




What a Looming Patent War Could Mean for the Future of America’s Marijuana Industry
There is growing concern in the American marijuana industry “about what may happen on the intellectual property frontier if and when legalization spreads across the country,” Greg Walters writes at…

View on Google+

In a world where US copyright law wasn't changed in 1976

… we in the US would have seen creative works (books, movies, even scientific papers and articles) from 1959 enter the public domain. Instead, they won't become available until 2055. Unless Disney (et al.) gets copyright extended again. Which, I'm sure, they are planning to before anything starts falling into the public domain again in 2019 …




What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2016?
What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2016? Under the law that existed until 1978 . . . Works from 1959 Tweet. Works that could have entered the public domain on January 1, 2016. The films North by Northwest and Ben-Hur, the play A Raisin in the Sun, the books The Naked Lunch …

View on Google+

On the Forever Franchise of "Star Wars"

Frankly, if they are all (or even mostly) as good as "The Force Awakens, " I have no problem with an endless series of Star Wars movies. Or Marvel movies. Or whatever.

I mean, we don't have problems with a TV show being 13 or 26 episodes in a single year, or of shows being renewed for another season. Nobody says, "OMG, another episode of that show this week, too? Why can't Hollywood give us different stand-alone TV shows each week, instead of endless sequels? Where is their creativity?"

Aside from the time spans involved, it's much the same thing with a movie series. And if they start to suck, the box office will drop and they'll stop making them.

There's nothing evil about a movie franchise, even if it includes associated one-off movies in the shared universe. And if a given franchise is not your cuppa, well, it's not like there is a shortage of entertainment out there to watch (or read, or listen to, or play) instead.




You Won’t Live to See the Final Star Wars Movie | WIRED
If the people at Disney have anything to say about it, the past four decades of Star Wars were merely prologue.

View on Google+

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things (Smart Light Bulb Edition)

Smart light bulbs and fixtures, connected to this and that via external control and intelligent lighting systems … may not always work as you think.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151214/07452133070/lightbulb-drm-philips-locks-purchasers-out-third-party-bulbs-with-firmware-update.shtml

TL;DR: Phillips has uploaded new patches to its Hue "smart" ambient lighting system to exclude light bulbs from competitors to Phillips.

Yes, this is basically saying that expensive smart lamp will only use bulbs from accepted (ch-ching) manufacturers, not from manufacturers who are producing compatible bulbs but haven't reached the proper, ahem, arrangement with Phillips.

Does this sound really, really short-sighted of Phillips? I sure hope so. Getting rid of compatibility while selling sophisticated hardware doesn't seem like a winning combination to me. But, hey, what do I know, I'm just a potential consumer …

 

View on Google+

The Diary of Anne Frank. Oh, and Otto Frank, too

Without taking away anything from the good works that the Anne Frank Foundation does with money they garner from the copyright to The Diary of Anne Frank, their eleventh hour declaration that her father, Otto, was actually a co-author of The Diary of Anne Frank, rather than an editor / compiler, doesn't pass the sniff test.

It's eleventh hour because the diary passes into the public domain at the beginning of next year. By adding Otto as an author, the copyright would be extended to 2035.

This is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, as described in the article. Copyright extensions are already problematic; if these particular shenanigans are allowed to stand, it will make things even worse.




Copyfraud: Anne Frank Foundation claims father was “co-author,” extends copyright by decades
The Anne Frank Foundation — a Swiss nonprofit that supports children’s charities and provides a stipend to gentiles who hid Jews during WWII — has claimed that Otto Frank, Anne Frank’s father, is…

View on Google+

Appeals Court okays Google's book scanning

I've used Google Books' scans many times, but I can honestly say it has never discouraged me from actually buying a book. In a few cases, in fact, it's been the opposite — having seen something interesting, I've purchased a copy of the book.




Google’s Book-Scanning Project Is Legal, U.S. Appeals Court Says
A group of authors had sued over Google’s effort to compile a digital library, arguing the project was illegal. An appeals court found the program complies with copyright law.

View on Google+

All your gadget are belong to us

End User License Agreements? So 90s.

DMCA restrictions on breaking into your digital stuff to back it up or modify it? So 00s.

The big money now is in establishing patents that restrict how you can use the stuff you buy. "That printer? You can only use original, non-refilled cartridges in it." "Sorry, that car can only be filled up at a Shell station." "Too bad, that waffle maker only takes Bisquik waffle mix." "You can only download the following sponsoring publishers to your e-reader; anything else, and we'll sue you."

And of course, "It's for your own protection."




How You Can Use Gadgets May Hinge on a Printer Ink Case

View on Google+

Hollywood throws a fit over Fair Use in the Trans-Pacific Pact

While giving lip service to accepting and even loving Fair Use provisions of US Copyright Law (which lets someone show, for example, a still photo from a movie in a review of said movie without paying or getting permission from the movie owner), word that the US Trade Representative is considering expanding the watered-down and voluntary Fair Use provisions in the TPP is giving the MPAA and their media brethren conniptions.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/will-hollywoods-whining-thwart-better-tpp-copyright-rules

As the EFF (and others) have pointed out, it's also interesting (if a bit disheartening) that this change in the USTR's attitude on the Fair Use bits of the TPP had nothing to do with various public interest groups that have been lobbying about it all along, but appears to be a response to major US corporate interests outside of Hollywood (Google, et al.) weighing in on the matter.

 

View on Google+

Dark Things Cannot Stand the Light (Trade Treaty Edition)

So I understand the difficulty of negotiating under a spotlight, but transparency is not a binary state. Popular micromanagement of treaty conferences would be unrealistic, but the blackout curtains being imposed over TTIP and other international trade treaties, explicitly to avoid public leaks and, thus, controversy, is in direct opposition to democratic principles, or even to the idea of representative democracy (if you don't know what important stuff your representatives are doing, you can't judge if they are representing you).

Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:

This should worry you.




Politicians can only view secret trade pact in special viewing room | Ars Technica
Resistance to pact grows as negotiators in US, EU remain tight-lipped.

View on Google+

Silly Google Story of the Day

TL;DR: Many companies which use the common English word "alphabet" in their company name are shocked, shocked that another company is now using the common English word "alphabet" in their company name.

Also, owner of the domain alphabet.com warns new company that is using the much cooler domain abc.xyz that their alphabet.com domain is not for sale.

Just thought you should know.




Alphabet? Google Might Get Some Letters – The New York Times
Alphabet is Google’s new entity that will house its search and other units, but other businesses — including a BMW subsidiary — have already staked a claim on the name.

View on Google+

All Your Law Is Belong To Us

The State of Georgia suggests that annotating and publishing the state's laws is a violation of copyright. And they're suing the guy who did it.

So much for respect for the law, not to mention free enterprise.

Originally shared by +Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Georgia brings a copyright lawsuit against Carl Malamud—for publishing state laws.




State Of Georgia Sues Carl Malamud For Copyright Infringement For Publishing The State’s Own Laws | Techdirt
Two years ago, we wrote about the state of Georgia ridiculously threatening to sue Carl Malamud and his site Public.Resource.org for copyright infringement… for publishing an official annotated copy of the state’s laws. This followed on a…

View on Google+

The Internet is a bit more awesome now

A million minutes of archival clips from AP and MovieTone up on YouTube? Very, very cool.

Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:




The AP adds 550,000 old newsreel clips to YouTube
The Associated Press has teamed up with British Movietone to share more than a century’s worth of newsreel footage with the denizens of the internet. The pair w…

View on Google+

Good-bye, European Panoramas

The EU is looking at a copyright reform bill that would require commercial use of any copyrighted public work — buildings, art, etc. — to require prior authorization and, possibly, payment before they could be used.

So putting together a tour book of Europe? Better get permission before you include any pictures (even ones taken by tourists) of works under copyright. Have a TV show that does a panoramic sweep across a major European capital? They may rely on a narrower picture (or none at all) rather than seek out each copyright holder and possibly have to pay them off.

It seems to me that if you are putting your art out on display — especially a building — you are inviting photography and videos of same. Sure, a photo of Sculpture X that is turned into a poster should earn something to the copyright holder. But a photo of Sculpture X in a montage of scenes around City Y strikes me as something very different, even though it may no longer considered as such by the EU.




Alert: Freedom of Panorama Under Threat in Europe
Should photographers be able to include copyrighted public building and sculptures in photos without having to worry about payment or permissions? The conc

View on Google+