Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
Rob Myers wrote: Registration only affects damages where copyright is infringed. So if someone uses your work without permission and you haven't registered you're not entitled to damages. ONLY in the States. Why not come into line with the rest of the world? Just get rid of the need (and expense, $30 a time) to register. Currently many working photographers in America are compelled to do the same as Seth Resnick: Every image that I shoot is registered before it ever leaves my office. To us outside the States this seems ludicrous - time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an automatic universal right. And in the Land of the Free!... The purpose behind the “visual registries” provisions is to help artists keep ownership information associated with their works... To help artists? Artists are automatically owners of their work. Nowhere else do they need to register the fact. Bob - Original Message From: Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Saturday, 17 May, 2008 9:06:03 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill bob catchpole wrote: My real point, which you don't address, is that copyright is a universal, automatic right. ONLY in the States it means nothing if you don't register. In the US, copyright means that you can stop people copying your work without permission. It is quite literally the right to control copies. Registration only affects damages where copyright is infringed. Instead of ending the fiasco and coming into line with the rest of the world, the Orphan Works Bill proposes even more registration. http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1561 MYTH: The bills would mandate registration of all visual arts in expensive, private registries. FACT: Neither bill contains such a mandate. Owners’ failure to register would not absolve users of their search obligations. The purpose behind the “visual registries” provisions is to help artists keep ownership information associated with their works and to help users find owners. In order to achieve this purpose, the bills contemplate the development of electronic databases of visual works in the market place. However, these registries do not have to be expensive. The bills do not require artists to use these services, nor do they require the services to charge a registration fee. Services that operate in the current marketplace, and provide services free of cost, could easily evolve into the visual registries contemplated by the bills. The bottom line is that the bills aim to encourage the market to solve a problem to help owners be found, but the bills do not require owners to register with these services. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
bob catchpole wrote: Rob Myers wrote: Registration only affects damages where copyright is infringed. So if someone uses your work without permission and you haven't registered you're not entitled to damages. ONLY in the States. It is possible to register afterwards and claim damages on the basis of that but I believe this has issues. Why not come into line with the rest of the world? Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Just get rid of the need (and expense, $30 a time) to register. You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing the date of publication can be useful. Currently many working photographers in America are compelled to do the same as Seth Resnick: Every image that I shoot is registered before it ever leaves my office. To us outside the States this seems ludicrous - time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an automatic universal right. And in the Land of the Free!... The purpose behind the “visual registries” provisions is to help artists keep ownership information associated with their works... To help artists? Artists are automatically owners of their work. Nowhere else do they need to register the fact. Artists receive copyright on completion of the work in the US the same as everywhere else, and this copyright allows them to prevent other people from copying their work (and thereby profiting from it) the same as everywhere else. Orphan works *are* a genuine problem for society that need tackling, even if the current bill is not perfect. The bill can be improved, and Public Knowledge have suggestions for this. The bill is not pro-corporate. Currently only big corporations can afford the risk of publishing old work with unknown copyright status. Damages could wipe out an individual or a smaller organization. The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that they do so fairly. The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) that enforce copyrights and fees under the current system. Most professional artists and designers already belong to such a scheme. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
*Why defend the indefensible?* I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. michael --- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 5:10 PM Hi Rob, Why defend the indefensible? Rob Myers wrote: Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean anything unless the work is registered. What kind of right is that? http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that they do so fairly. That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if the work isn't registered. ONLY in the States! The registry system is optional The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation allows infringers to use your work with impunity. The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) A registry system ONLY exists in the States. DACS, a designers and artists association in the UK, is likely horrified at the Orphan Works Bill. Actually, the American registry system is a form of state intervention in the market place that isn't tolerated anywhere else. Bob. - Original Message From: Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 3:02:50 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill bob catchpole wrote: Rob Myers wrote: Registration only affects damages where copyright is infringed. So if someone uses your work without permission and you haven't registered you're not entitled to damages. ONLY in the States. It is possible to register afterwards and claim damages on the basis of that but I believe this has issues. Why not come into line with the rest of the world? Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Just get rid of the need (and expense, $30 a time) to register. You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing the date of publication can be useful. Currently many working photographers in America are compelled to do the same as Seth Resnick: Every image that I shoot is registered before it ever leaves my office. To us outside the States this seems ludicrous - time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an automatic universal right. And in the Land of the Free!... The purpose behind the “visual registries” provisions is to help artists keep ownership information associated with their works... To help artists? Artists are automatically owners of their work. Nowhere else do they need to register the fact. Artists receive copyright on completion of the work in the US the same as everywhere else, and this copyright allows them to prevent other people from copying their work (and thereby profiting from it) the same as everywhere else. Orphan works *are* a genuine problem for society that need tackling, even if the current bill is not perfect. The bill can be improved, and Public Knowledge have suggestions for this. The bill is not pro-corporate. Currently only big corporations can afford the risk of publishing old work with unknown copyright status. Damages could wipe out an individual or a smaller organization. The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that they do so fairly. The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) that enforce copyrights and fees under the current system. Most professional artists and designers already belong to such a scheme. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
Michael Szpakowski wrote: I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. Fascinating stuff... I describe an ongoing fiasco, our two friends across the pond go on defending it... It's possible to see how something as awful as the Orphan Works Bill could even be contemplated over there. It's invaluable to hear from someone who knows what a lot of us are thinking... Bob - Original Message From: Michael Szpakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 6:45:34 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill *Why defend the indefensible?* I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. michael --- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 5:10 PM Hi Rob, Why defend the indefensible? Rob Myers wrote: Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean anything unless the work is registered. What kind of right is that? http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that they do so fairly. That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if the work isn't registered. ONLY in the States! The registry system is optional The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation allows infringers to use your work with impunity. The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) A registry system ONLY exists in the States. DACS, a designers and artists association in the UK, is likely horrified at the Orphan Works Bill. Actually, the American registry system is a form of state intervention in the market place that isn't tolerated anywhere else. Bob. - Original Message From: Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 3:02:50 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill bob catchpole wrote: Rob Myers wrote: Registration only affects damages where copyright is infringed. So if someone uses your work without permission and you haven't registered you're not entitled to damages. ONLY in the States. It is possible to register afterwards and claim damages on the basis of that but I believe this has issues. Why not come into line with the rest of the world? Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Just get rid of the need (and expense, $30 a time) to register. You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing the date of publication can be useful. Currently many working photographers in America are compelled to do the same as Seth Resnick: Every image that I shoot is registered before it ever leaves my office. To us outside the States this seems ludicrous - time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an automatic universal right. And in the Land of the Free!... The purpose behind the “visual registries” provisions is to help artists keep ownership information associated with their works... To help artists? Artists are automatically owners of their work. Nowhere else do they need to register the fact. Artists receive copyright on completion of the work in the US the same as everywhere else, and this copyright allows them to prevent other people from copying their work (and thereby profiting from it) the same as everywhere else. Orphan works *are* a genuine problem for society that need tackling, even if the current bill is not perfect. The bill can be improved, and Public Knowledge have suggestions for this. The bill is not pro-corporate. Currently only big corporations can afford the risk of publishing old work with unknown copyright status. Damages could wipe out an individual or a smaller organization. The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that they do so fairly. The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) that enforce copyrights and fees under the current system. Most professional artists and designers already belong to such a scheme. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter
Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
Try reading what I wrote. I defended nothing - I questioned the whole concept of copyright. someone who knows what a lot of us are thinking I think what I said was probably just a statement of fact as far as this list is concerned; I could be wrong. I'm aware it's not a mainstream view. across the pond I don't know what pond divides Norfolk from Cambridgeshire Essex. Bit more thinking investigating before talking perhaps Bob :) m. --- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 7:27 PM Michael Szpakowski wrote: I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. Fascinating stuff... I describe an ongoing fiasco, our two friends across the pond go on defending it... It's possible to see how something as awful as the Orphan Works Bill could even be contemplated over there. It's invaluable to hear from someone who knows what a lot of us are thinking... Bob - Original Message From: Michael Szpakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 6:45:34 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill *Why defend the indefensible?* I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. michael --- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 5:10 PM Hi Rob, Why defend the indefensible? Rob Myers wrote: Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean anything unless the work is registered. What kind of right is that? http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that they do so fairly. That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if the work isn't registered. ONLY in the States! The registry system is optional The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation allows infringers to use your work with impunity. The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) A registry system ONLY exists in the States. DACS, a designers and artists association in the UK, is likely horrified at the Orphan Works Bill. Actually, the American registry system is a form of state intervention in the market place that isn't tolerated anywhere else. Bob. - Original Message From: Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 3:02:50 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill bob catchpole wrote: Rob Myers wrote: Registration only affects damages where copyright is infringed. So if someone uses your work without permission and you haven't registered you're not entitled to damages. ONLY in the States. It is possible to register afterwards and claim damages on the basis of that but I believe this has issues. Why not come into line with the rest of the world? Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Just get rid of the need (and expense, $30 a time) to register. You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing the date of publication can be useful. Currently many working photographers in America are compelled to do the same as Seth Resnick: Every image that I shoot is registered before it ever leaves my office. To us outside the States this seems ludicrous - time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an automatic universal right. And in the Land of the Free!... The purpose behind the “visual registries” provisions is to help artists keep ownership information associated with their works... To help artists? Artists are automatically owners of their work. Nowhere else do they need to register the fact. Artists receive copyright on completion of the work in the US the same as everywhere else, and this copyright allows them to prevent other people from copying their work (and thereby profiting from it) the same as everywhere else. Orphan works *are* a genuine problem for society that need tackling, even if the current bill is not perfect. The bill can be improved, and
Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
Silly me... and I thought Michael was making an informed contribution for a lot of us here in the States... yet it's nothing of the sort... Michael has nothing to say about the Orphan Works Bill... but throws in copyright tout court expecting people to know what he's talking about... The implications of this Bill, if passed in America, will be global, and particularly detrimental for artists... ... more info at http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html Bob - Original Message From: Michael Szpakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 11:11:54 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill Try reading what I wrote. I defended nothing - I questioned the whole concept of copyright. someone who knows what a lot of us are thinking I think what I said was probably just a statement of fact as far as this list is concerned; I could be wrong. I'm aware it's not a mainstream view. across the pond I don't know what pond divides Norfolk from Cambridgeshire Essex. Bit more thinking investigating before talking perhaps Bob :) m. --- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 7:27 PM Michael Szpakowski wrote: I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. Fascinating stuff... I describe an ongoing fiasco, our two friends across the pond go on defending it... It's possible to see how something as awful as the Orphan Works Bill could even be contemplated over there. It's invaluable to hear from someone who knows what a lot of us are thinking... Bob - Original Message From: Michael Szpakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 6:45:34 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill *Why defend the indefensible?* I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. michael --- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: bob catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 5:10 PM Hi Rob, Why defend the indefensible? Rob Myers wrote: Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean anything unless the work is registered. What kind of right is that? http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but that they do so fairly. That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if the work isn't registered. ONLY in the States! The registry system is optional The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation allows infringers to use your work with impunity. The registry system is optional and is designed to build on services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) A registry system ONLY exists in the States. DACS, a designers and artists association in the UK, is likely horrified at the Orphan Works Bill. Actually, the American registry system is a form of state intervention in the market place that isn't tolerated anywhere else. Bob. - Original Message From: Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 3:02:50 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill bob catchpole wrote: Rob Myers wrote: Registration only affects damages where copyright is infringed. So if someone uses your work without permission and you haven't registered you're not entitled to damages. ONLY in the States. It is possible to register afterwards and claim damages on the basis of that but I believe this has issues. Why not come into line with the rest of the world? Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world. Just get rid of the need (and expense, $30 a time) to register. You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing the date of publication can be useful. Currently many working photographers in America are compelled to do the same as Seth Resnick: Every image that I shoot is registered before it ever leaves my office. To us outside the States this seems ludicrous - time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an
[NetBehaviour] Combo
Combo Combination continuous and discontinuous: f(sin, tan) modeled simply in Calculon (Zaurus) Orthogonally along the axes, the configurations are simple; askew, they're surprisingly complex. Of course this is all dependent on projecting onto the plane. sin(x) + tan(y) and sin(x) * tan(y) http://www.alansondheim.org/sintan1.png http://www.alansondheim.org/sintan2.png http://www.alansondheim.org/sintan3.png http://www.alansondheim.org/sintan4.png http://www.alansondheim.org/sintan5.png http://www.alansondheim.org/sintan6.png http://www.alansondheim.org/sintan7.png http://www.alansondheim.org/sintan8.png Thinking about behavioral modeling - ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
