Your comment is ambiguous; in the event that anybody is interpreting this as "use your propane BBQ to heat your house" don't do that. You are highly likely to get a first-hand experience of CO toxicity.
First of all, I'm a Georgist, so I think you should be allowed to own your house, but rent the land indefinitely (and freely transfer your interest in renting the land).
I'd like to see how free someone in China feels if they put up a Winnie The Pooh yard-sign (which I can do freely in the US, despite Disney owning the copyright for the likeness that I would use).
I don’t think so. They need to have the policy of terminating accounts and actually terminate a subset of them. They just can’t be held liable for not terminating all of them.
> The Fourth Circuit’s holding went beyond the two forms of liability recognized in Grokster and Sony by holding that “supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights is . . . sufficient for contributory infringement.” 93 F. 4th 222, 236. This holding went beyond the two bases for contributory liability recognized in the Court’s precedent and conflicted with the Court’s repeated admonition that contributory liability cannot rest only on a provider’s knowledge of infringement and insufficient action to prevent it. Pp. 9–10.
> (c) Sony argues that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor—under which Internet service providers cannot be secondarily liable for certain forms of copyright infringement if they have implemented “a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders” who “are repeated infringers,” 17 U. S. C. §512(i)(1)(A)—would have no effect if Internet service providers are not liable for providing Internet service to known infringers. The DMCA does not expressly impose liability for Internet service providers who serve known infringers; it merely creates new defenses from liability for such providers. The DMCA itself made clear that failure to comply with the safe-harbor rules “shall not bear adversely upon . . . a defense by the service provider,” as here, “that the service provider’s conduct is not infringing.” §512(l). P. 10.
> In all likely not worth the trouble. When I moved to Canada I gave away most of my power tools for that reason and when I moved back I had to do that all over again.
If you ever have to do it again, you can probably get a transformer rated high enough for power-tools for cheaper than replacing all of your power tools.
The line frequency tends to screw with things with motors too. Moved from the US to Belgium back when compact cassette was a common format for music.
Killed a few tapes with a transformer on a US tape deck before buying a 220V 50Hz unit. No, I don’t remember if the pitch was grossly off, but I’m guessing it wasn’t.
Of course you can. That's kind of obvious. It is also highly impractical. Besides the frequency delta you end up having to lug a heavy transformer along and then you have to alternate it across your tools so you don't end up frying the transformer.
I personally think that the lifetime of the author is a bit odd, since it reduces the rewards towards those who are old or infirm. I agree the length is way too long though.
Remember that Disney was a major factor in lobbying for the longer copyright terms, and their 1959 film Sleeping Beauty was made 80 years after Tchaikovsky's ballet (a major source for the Film's soundtrack).
If we thus take 79 years as our measuring stick (And I still think that's a bit too long) 18 more books from the list would be in the public domain.
Maybe if we take 25 as a typical beginning of career and 80 as a typical date of death for someone who lives to 25 we could settle on 55 years? That would leave only 13 items on the list as still under copyright, and I believe that includes all works by living authors too.
reply