Re: Wikipedia and Commons screenshots of GNU programms [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index] Re: Wikipedia and Commons screenshots of GNU programms Scripsit Patrick-Emil Zörner <paddyez@yahoo.de> > My question is the following:is there a policy or rule of if and how > screenshots of GNU programs may be published? You would be better off asking that question of the FSF. Reply to: References: Stop Online Piracy Act Failed United States bill Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. Claiming flaws in existing laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of active promotion of rogue websites by U.S. search engines, proponents asserted that stronger enforcement tools were needed. The bill received strong, bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It also received support from the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Governors Association, The National Conference of Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau, the AFL–CIO and 22 trade unions, and the National Consumers League.[2] History[edit] Goals[edit] According to Rep. Sponsor Rep.
Freedom to roam The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam. In different countries[edit] In England and Wales public access rights apply to certain categories of mainly uncultivated land—specifically "mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land." Developed land, gardens and certain other areas are specifically excluded from the right of access. In Scotland and the Nordic countries of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as well as the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the freedom to roam may take the form of general public rights which are sometimes codified in law. Many tropical countries such as Madagascar have historic policies of open access to forest or wilderness areas. In the Nordic countries[edit] Access rights are most often for travel on foot. Finland[edit] Norway[edit]
Computação distribuída Origem: Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre. A computação distribuída, ou sistema distribuído, é uma referência à computação paralela e descentralizada, realizada por dois ou mais computadores conectados através de uma rede, cujo objetivo é concluir uma tarefa em comum. Definição[editar | editar código-fonte] Um sistema distribuído segundo a definição de Andrew Tanenbaum é uma "coleção de computadores independentes que se apresenta ao usuário como um sistema único e consistente"1 ; outra definição, de George Coulouris, diz: "coleção de computadores autônomos interligados através de uma rede de computadores e equipados com software que permita o compartilhamento dos recursos do sistema: hardware, software e dados"[carece de fontes]. Assim, a computação distribuída consiste em adicionar o poder computacional de diversos computadores interligados por uma rede de computadores. Organização[editar | editar código-fonte] Organizar a interação entre cada computador é primordial.
Right to quote Right to quote is a legal concept in continental Europe, which some people consider similar to fair use.[1] It allows for quoting excerpts of copyrighted works, as long as the cited paragraphs are within a reasonable limit (varying from country to country), clearly marked as quotations and fully referenced, and if the resulting new work is not just a collection of quotations, but constitutes a fully original work in itself. In some countries the intended use of the work (educational, scientific, parodist, etc.) may also be a factor determining the scope of this right. France[edit] In France, it is illegal to reproduce someone's work without their approval. Germany[edit] In Germany, the right to quote is extended considerably for research purposes and may even encompass complete works (e. g. texts, pictures, music or videos).[3] References[edit] See also[edit] Fair dealing
PROTECT IP Act The PROTECT IP Act is a re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA),[5] which failed to pass in 2010. A similar House version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), was introduced on October 26, 2011.[6] In the wake of online protests held on January 18, 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that a vote on the bill would be postponed until issues raised about the bill were resolved.[7][8][9] Content[edit] The bill defines infringement as distribution of illegal copies, counterfeit goods, or anti-digital rights management technology. The PROTECT IP Act says that an "information location tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, to remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order". Supporters[edit] Legislators[edit] Companies and trade organizations[edit] The U.S. Others[edit] Opponents[edit] Legislators[edit] Companies and organizations[edit]
もう一つの著作権の話 1 はじめに 私は、まだ中学生または高校生である皆さんのために著作権の仕組みを解説して、 皆さんの自主的な意思のもとに著作権を尊重してもらえるように、 と考えてこの文章を書くことにしました。 皆さんにむけて書かれた著作権の話は、すでにいろいろとあるようです。しかし、 そうした話の大部分は「著作権法を守りましょう」「書籍やコンパクトディスク(CD) やビデオを勝手にコピーすると法律で罰せられます」 ということを皆さんに訴えるだけに止まっているようです。 既にしっかりとした判断力と自分の考えを持っている皆さんにとって、ただ 「法律を守りましょう」といわれるだけでは、 納得がいかない部分もあるのではないかと私は考えます。 そこで、この『もうひとつの著作権の話』では、 「なぜ私たちが著作権を尊重しなければならないのか」 という根本的な理由についていっさい手を抜かずに、 でも難しい用語や概念を使わずに説明することを目標としています。 2 こまった著作権！ さて、皆さんはこれまでに一度くらいは「著作権」 という言葉を聞いたことがあると思います。 最近は情報化社会という時代に入ったとよく言われます。 まず、情報化社会とは、私たちの欲望の対象が具体的な「物」に加えて、 形を持たない「情報」に広がった時代だということができます。 しかしながら、たとえばゲーム機の場合、 ゲームの機械だけを買ってきても意味がありませんね。 次に情報化時代とは、そうした「情報」 の取り使い方が大きく進歩した時代ということができます。 ところが、情報化時代においては、コピー機やMDやビデオデッキがあります。 さて、 明治時代以来の私たちの国でこうした情報の取り扱いについて定めた法律として著作 権法や特許法のようないくつかの法律があります。 情報化時代以前の時代では、 先にも述べたように情報を物から分離して取り扱うことは非常に大変で、 普通の家庭で作品のコピーを作ることは実際にはほとんど不可能でした。 ところが情報化時代になりますと、 普通の家庭の周辺にカセットデッキやビデオレコーダ、コピー機、 コンピュータなどがごく普通に存在するようになりました。 あまりにそれらの機器の性能が向上したために、 書店やCD店で売られている作品とほとんど同じ品質のものを家庭で作成することがで きるようになってきました。 3 なぜ著作権？
Proposed US ACTA plurilateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007) From WikiLeaks Unless otherwise specified, the document described here: Was first publicly revealed by WikiLeaks working with our source.Was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public before release.Is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance. Any questions about this document's veracity are noted. The summary is approved by the editorial board. See here for a detailed explanation of the information on this page. If you have similar or updated material, see our submission instructions. Release date May 22, 2008 In 2007 a select handful of the wealthiest countries began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement, which was called, in a piece of brilliant marketing, the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (the agreement does not cover currency fraud). Wikileaks has obtained the document. The agreement covers the copying of information or ideas in a wide variety of contexts. Remarks by U.S.
Fair dealing Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, which is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations. Fair dealing is an enumerated set of possible defences against an action for infringement of an exclusive right of copyright. Unlike the related United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing cannot apply to any act which does not fall within one of these categories. Fair dealing by country[edit] Australia[edit] In Australia, the grounds for fair dealing are: Research and study (section 40 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)[1]Review and criticism (s41)[2]"Reporting the news" (s42)[3]Legal advice (although the federal Crown is deemed to own copyright in federal statutes, and the Crown in each State in state statutes). Regarding fair dealing under Crown copyright the Australian Copyright Act 1968, ss.176-178. Canada[edit] The 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd. v.
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election. Background[edit] In 2002, the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold" or "BCRA"), amending the Federal Election Campaign Act to further regulate money in public election campaigns. One primary purpose of the legislation was to regulate what were colloquially known as "issue ads." Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. In the first round of litigation, the federal district court ruled that the language of McConnell v. On remand, the FEC argued that ads run so close to an election and naming a candidate or candidates should be presumed to have the intent of influencing the election, and thus BCRA's limitation on financing such ads with corporate funds was constitutionally valid. Opinion of the Supreme Court[edit] [Wedding scene]
Freedom from Suspicion · Resources · Justice Surveillance Reform for a Digital Age In 2000, Parliament enacted the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. At the time, it was acclaimed by government ministers as human rights compliant, forward-looking legislation. Since its inception, there have been close to three million decisions taken by public bodies under RIPA. Surveillance is a necessary activity in the fight against serious crime. It is a vital part of our national security. RIPA has not only failed to check a great deal of plainly excessive surveillance by public bodies over the last decade but, in many cases, inadvertently encouraged it. JUSTICE’s report, Freedom from Suspicion, Surveillance Reform for a Digital Age, responds to these issues, covering: Surveillance and the right to privacyInterception of communicationsCommunications data‘Intrusive’ Surveillance‘Directed’ SurveillanceCovert human intelligence sourcesEncryption keysThe Investigatory Powers Tribunal Author Dr Eric Metcalfe Category Reports Published
What the "jailbreak" exemption says about the future of copyright law | Stanford Center for Internet and Society (Build 20100722155716) I dashed off a piece for CNET today on the Copyright Office’s cell phone “jailbreaking” rulemaking earlier this week. Though there has already been extensive coverage (including solid pieces in The Washington Post, a New York Times editorial, CNET, and Techdirt), there were a few interesting aspects to the decision I thought were worth highlighting. Most notably, I was interested that no one had discussed the possibility and process by which Apple or other service providers could appeal the rulemaking. Ordinarily, parties who object to rules enrolled by administrative agencies can file suit in federal district court under the Administrative Procedures Act. What I found in interviewing several leading high tech law scholars and practitioners is that no one was really clear how or even if that process applied to the Copyright Office. For more on this on other important aspects of the case, see "Copyright Office Weighs in on Awkward Questions of Software Law."
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003),[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act. It was partially overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).[2] History[edit] In May 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling on the constitutionality of the law, but the ruling never took effect because the case was immediately appealed to the U.S. Oral arguments[edit] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session on September 8, 2003. Opinions[edit] Justices Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg established the majority for two parts of the Court's opinion: With respect to Titles I and II of the BCRA, Justices Stevens, O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court.With respect to Title V of the BCRA, Justice Breyer wrote the Court's opinion.