On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:50 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
I don't think they intended to screw the mini-lab operator, that's
just an additional unexpected benefit from their point of view.
If a law can be abused, it will be abused.
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/
From: Bob Sullivan
John,
Didn't the copywrite laws pre-date the music industry?
How can they be caused by the music industry?
Regards, Bob S.
Copyright law got "updated" in 1998 to include digital media. That's why
it's named the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The part about the o
I certainly agree much of it comes down to reading style. The
digital readers work well in certain situations and the old printed
books work well in certain situations.
For me, I am on the go quite a bit. I have snippets of time
available to burn waiting to pick up one of my kids - usually only
Bob W wrote:
5. The best analogy is obviously Apple/itunes. Apple
recently pulled an
App that killed a virtual baby by shaking the ipod. I'm trying to
remember if they pulled the App from ipods.
This is not possible AFAIK
Ah, you're so refreshingly naive, Cotty
th
Whaley
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 7:29 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
P. J. Alling wrote:
> I don't know, I've not been particularly impressed with the dedicated
> readers I've seen. I've been reading documentation on comput
www.CottyTV.com
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bob W
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 3:13 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: OT: Down the memory hole ...
>
> >5. The best analogy is obviously A
Bob W wrote:
[...]
In copyright law there is no automatic assignment. If the contract with the
photographer does not explicitly assign copyright to the hirer then the
photographer retains the copyright.
Bob
Thanks for the clarification!
keith
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
P. J. Alling wrote:
I don't know, I've not been particularly impressed with the dedicated
readers I've seen. I've been reading documentation on computer screens
for the past 15 or 20 years, since Microsoft stopped printing bound
manuals anyway, and a good monitor works well enough.
A discuss
On Jul 20, 2009, at 3:50 AM, William Robb wrote:
It's ludicrous that a photographer can claim ownership of something
he was hired to make, and paid, often very expensively, in full for
making. It's like Joe Airwrench claiming ownership of my truck
because he bolted the driver's side front w
>
> >5. The best analogy is obviously Apple/itunes. Apple
> recently pulled an
> >App that killed a virtual baby by shaking the ipod. I'm trying to
> >remember if they pulled the App from ipods.
>
> This is not possible AFAIK
>
Ah, you're so refreshingly naive, Cotty! Steve Jobs and all
On 19/7/09, Desjardins, Steve, discombobulated, unleashed:
>5. The best analogy is obviously Apple/itunes. Apple recently pulled an
>App that killed a virtual baby by shaking the ipod. I'm trying to
>remember if they pulled the App from ipods.
This is not possible AFAIK
--
Cheers,
Cott
I've been using EReader on my Palm and Pocket PC's and now my Win
Mobile phones. I am much happier reading from a device than holding
those big, heavy books that I can't see in dim light.
I'll happily go the digital route as I have done with photography.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Saturday, July
: "William Robb"
>>>
>>> From: "John Sessoms"
>>> Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > I remember a long argument somewhere here or in usenet about what my >
>>>>
I don't know, I've not been particularly impressed with the dedicated
readers I've seen. I've been reading documentation on computer screens
for the past 15 or 20 years, since Microsoft stopped printing bound
manuals anyway, and a good monitor works well enough.
paul stenquist wrote:
A PC won
Not having complete control of the device wouldn't stop me from buying
one. Hell, I lease cars. But, at the moment, I don't have time to read
enough to justify the expense. I still have quite a few conventional
books that await my attention.
Paul
On Jul 19, 2009, at 6:14 PM, P. J. Alling wro
A PC wont replace a Kindle. The Kindle page is much easier on the eyes
than a computer, and is much more like the printed page. Dedicated
readers will probably prevail in this segment
Paul
On Jul 19, 2009, at 5:10 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Once again it's only a matter of time. In this case I
2009/7/20 Bob W :
> In copyright law there is no automatic assignment. If the contract with the
> photographer does not explicitly assign copyright to the hirer then the
> photographer retains the copyright.
>
Actually, that does sound like an automatic assignment of copyright.
If not negotiated i
John,
Didn't the copywrite laws pre-date the music industry?
How can they be caused by the music industry?
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: "William Robb"
>>
>> From: "John Sessoms"
>> Subject: Re: OT
So I guess I won't be "buying" a Kindle, since I really won't "own" the
thing in any meaningful sense of the word.
Joseph McAllister wrote:
You may find the answer to your conundrum in the fine print of a
Kindle Contract...
If not, it will surely be there next Monday!
On Jul 19, 2009, at 14
You may find the answer to your conundrum in the fine print of a
Kindle Contract...
If not, it will surely be there next Monday!
On Jul 19, 2009, at 14:22 , P. J. Alling wrote:
I'm sorry, this may not bother you, but it bothers me. Look it in
the physical world. I buy something and put i
2009/7/19 Joseph McAllister :
> They are working on a system where the kids notes would not be sucked back
> should this ever happen again. And that seems not too hard to do, allowing
> user input to be stored separately from the text of the books.
It is indeed not hard to do. :-)
It's already bui
.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
Once again it's only a matter of time. In this case I would expect it
would be software that could be loaded on a hand held computing device,
or PC that will control access to t
I'm sorry, this may not bother you, but it bothers me. Look it in the
physical world. I buy something and put it in my car. Unbeknownst to
me what I bought was stolen property. The vendor also claiming they
didn't know it was stolen, upon discovering their "mistake", breaks into
my car and
Once again it's only a matter of time. In this case I would expect it
would be software that could be loaded on a hand held computing device,
or PC that will control access to those documents. Software security is
even more fleeting than military secrets.
Joseph McAllister wrote:
The librari
From what I've read and heard in the past few days, the deal is this.
Amazon had/has contracted with many firms or individuals representing
themselves as firms to provide electronic versions of books.
Amazon did not do a good enough job of checking the authenticity of
these contractors, and
The libraries here in the Seattle area offer a growing list of titles
that are available for download with a time limit on them, in PC, Mac,
and iPod formats. I find the iTouch a bit small for reading a book,
but my laptop is just fine.
I imagine that in the next few years lending libraries
John Sessoms wrote:
From: John Francis
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 02:02:43PM +0200, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2009/7/19 Graydon :
> > The thing to think about is whether or not one wants to do
business with
> > a company like that.
> > Oh, absolutely! :-) > That's why I don't have a Kindle.
> > Maybe
From: "Bob W"
Your analysis of this is incorrect. The law is perfectly reasonable, and is
aimed at the organisation or person that copies the material, whether it's a
bootlegging organisation or a minilab or an individual. None of them has the
right to copy material that belongs to someone else.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Paul, what strikes me odd in this story is that it seems Kindle is
either always connected or something like that. In general, should I
have a thing such as this, I would obviously download books from the
store and turn off whatever connectivity the device has. Also, in the
From: Keith Whaley
William Robb wrote:
> It's ludicrous that a photographer can claim ownership of something he
> was hired to make, and paid, often very expensively, in full for making.
> It's like Joe Airwrench claiming ownership of my truck because he bolted
> the driver's side front wheel
- Original Message -
From: "Bob W"
Subject: RE: OT: Down the memory hole ...
In copyright law there is no automatic assignment. If the contract with
the
photographer does not explicitly assign copyright to the hirer then the
photographer retains the copyright.
In Canad
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: "P. J. Alling"
>>
>> I refuse to use proprietary distribution formats because it locks you into
>> one vendor. Baen Books, a publisher of Science Fiction offers their books
>> in HTML format, (and a few others as well), but you can read
>
> Nice thing is, however, as a practitioner in either, I
> suspect you have
> to know all about Federal _and_ Commercial contract law.
> Except for details here and there, contract law doesn't
> differ much from
> place to place.
>
> > It's ludicrous that a photographer can claim ownership
Your analysis of this is incorrect. The law is perfectly reasonable, and is
aimed at the organisation or person that copies the material, whether it's a
bootlegging organisation or a minilab or an individual. None of them has the
right to copy material that belongs to someone else. The employer is
From: John Francis
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 02:02:43PM +0200, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2009/7/19 Graydon :
> > The thing to think about is whether or not one wants to do business with
> > a company like that.
>
> Oh, absolutely! :-)
> That's why I don't have a Kindle.
>
> Maybe I'm too cynical, but
From: "P. J. Alling"
I refuse to use proprietary distribution formats because it locks you
into one vendor. Baen Books, a publisher of Science Fiction offers
their books in HTML format, (and a few others as well), but you can
read them in any browser, and they can't reach into your machine an
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Keith Whaley wrote:
>
> Yessir. I agree with you.
> It would seem to me, that in a court of law, the mere fact that he was HIRED
> to make the image(s) automatically flips the ownership question to the
> person who contracted with the photographer as being the owner
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
I remember a long argument somewhere here or in usenet about what my
responsibility was at the photolab regarding customers who came in to
make copies of copyrigh
From: "William Robb"
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
>
> I remember a long argument somewhere here or in usenet about what my
> responsibility was at the photolab regarding customers who came in to make
> copies of copyrighted
Graydon wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:20:26AM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit:
So this particular Amazon contributor had apparently scanned the book
themselves. As such is an illegitimate digtialisation, and they are
breaking copyright.
We don't know that.
No wonder Amazon would call the purch
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Bob W wrote:
>
>> > > The thing to think about is whether or not one wants to
>> do business with
>> > > a company like that.
>> >
>> > Oh, absolutely! :-)
>> > That's why I don't have a Kindle.
>> >
>> > Maybe I'm too cynical, but I tend to think that one gets
>> w
> > > The thing to think about is whether or not one wants to
> do business with
> > > a company like that.
> >
> > Oh, absolutely! :-)
> > That's why I don't have a Kindle.
> >
> > Maybe I'm too cynical, but I tend to think that one gets
> what one has
> > paid for by buying into Amazon's sch
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
I remember a long argument somewhere here or in usenet about what my
responsibility was at the photolab regarding customers who came in to
make copies of copyrigh
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 02:02:43PM +0200, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2009/7/19 Graydon :
> > The thing to think about is whether or not one wants to do business with
> > a company like that.
>
> Oh, absolutely! :-)
> That's why I don't have a Kindle.
>
> Maybe I'm too cynical, but I tend to think that one
I refuse to use proprietary distribution formats because it locks you
into one vendor. Baen Books, a publisher of Science Fiction offers
their books in HTML format, (and a few others as well), but you can
read them in any browser, and they can't reach into your machine and
erase something you
- Original Message -
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
I remember a long argument somewhere here or in usenet about what my
responsibility was at the photolab regarding customers who came in to make
copies of copyrighted images. Under the
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:06:28AM -0400, John Sessoms scripsit:
> I think I'll stick with my old, beat up, dog eared paperbacks.
They get heavy.
E-paper, especially if they can get the refresh time down, is entirely
good enough as a reading surface, and having the one comms terminal to
read stuf
I have actually received stolen goods, once that I know of. It was an
interstate transaction through e-bay. The original owner through their
local police informed me that I could keep the item as long as I signed
an affidavit, effectively written testimony, against the illegal seller
who was
From: AlunFoto
2009/7/19 Graydon :
> No.
>
> The publisher *changed their mind* about selling an electronic edition
> and retroactively deleted the copies that had been sold.
>
> Think about this in context of news or political writing.
I just read the article again. The phrase "changed their
I do quite a bit of freelance work for amazon.com. While I've found
that they're extremely cautious about legal matters and contract
agreements, they are also scrupulously honest when it comes to
compensation and agreements. I can't say the same about all of my
clients. I think amazon.com h
The works were distributed in violation of copyright. It wasn't just a
case of someone changing their mind. Amazon had to pull the plug on
them.
Paul
On Jul 19, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Graydon wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:20:26AM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit:
So this particular Amazon contributo
> Behalf Of AlunFoto
>> Sent: 19 July 2009 12:51
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
>>
>> 2009/7/19 Graydon :
>> > No.
>> >
>> > The publisher *changed their mind* about selling an
>> electronic edit
> 2009/7/19 Graydon :
> > The thing to think about is whether or not one wants to do
> business with
> > a company like that.
>
> Oh, absolutely! :-)
> That's why I don't have a Kindle.
>
> Maybe I'm too cynical, but I tend to think that one gets what one has
> paid for by buying into Amazon's
2009/7/19 Graydon :
> The thing to think about is whether or not one wants to do business with
> a company like that.
Oh, absolutely! :-)
That's why I don't have a Kindle.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I tend to think that one gets what one has
paid for by buying into Amazon's scheme.
Jostein
--
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:08:55 +0100
"Bob W" wrote:
> I have downloaded a couple of dictionaries onto my phone/pda from this
> company:
> http://www.mobipocket.com/en/HomePage/default.asp?Language=EN
>
> They seem to have all the Orwell anyone could want, including 1984:
> http://www.mobipocket.c
Not quite, because the police can seize the stolen goods, or order you to
return or, in this case delete, them. At which point you're obliged to carry
out their instructions if you wish to retain a lilywhite conscience and a
clean record.
You are not even entitled to your money back - I think you
Sent: 19 July 2009 12:51
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
>
> 2009/7/19 Graydon :
> > No.
> >
> > The publisher *changed their mind* about selling an
> electronic edition
> > and retroactively deleted the copies that had
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 01:51:15PM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit:
> 2009/7/19 Graydon :
> > No.
> >
> > The publisher *changed their mind* about selling an electronic edition
> > and retroactively deleted the copies that had been sold.
> >
> > Think about this in context of news or political writing.
>
2009/7/19 Graydon :
> No.
>
> The publisher *changed their mind* about selling an electronic edition
> and retroactively deleted the copies that had been sold.
>
> Think about this in context of news or political writing.
I just read the article again. The phrase "changed their mind" does
not occu
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:20:26AM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit:
> So this particular Amazon contributor had apparently scanned the book
> themselves. As such is an illegitimate digtialisation, and they are
> breaking copyright. No wonder Amazon would call the purchases back. I
> empathise with those w
hmm...
The real reason seems to be what hides in one small paragraph:
"Antoine Bruguier, an engineer in Silicon Valley, said he had noticed
that his digital copy of “1984” appeared to be a scan of a paper
edition of the book."
So this particular Amazon contributor had apparently scanned the book
On Jul 19, 2009, at 1:21 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
The books amazon erased were sold illegally by a third party. By
erasing them amazon is just protecting the rights of the author's
heirs and estate. However, amazon has decided that they won't do
that again, but they will be more cautious w
Paul, what strikes me odd in this story is that it seems Kindle is
either always connected or something like that. In general, should I
have a thing such as this, I would obviously download books from the
store and turn off whatever connectivity the device has. Also, in the
case of that person who
The books amazon erased were sold illegally by a third party. By
erasing them amazon is just protecting the rights of the author's
heirs and estate. However, amazon has decided that they won't do that
again, but they will be more cautious when it comes to enabling
marketers of digital books
64 matches
Mail list logo
