oh man...thats gonna cause a lot of shit with the copyright lawyers. they'll copyright geometric shapes, so it'll be illegal to "print" circles or triangles without being sued.
oh man...thats gonna cause a lot of shit with the copyright lawyers. they'll copyright geometric shapes, so it'll be illegal to "print" circles or triangles without being sued.
I might be totally wrong, but I'm under the impression a home-user would be able to print any forms as long as he doesn't try to commercially exploit them. For example, if he breaks the plastic handle of his joystick, he would be able to print a new one, despite the form being owned by the joystick manufacturer. However, some street corner shop wouldn't be able to print that joystick part, because for it it would be illegal business to print it and then to sell it to the unlucky customer.Originally Posted by Assassin
You are correct Kraco, but it wouldn't mean that companies would not try and sue people in a back asswards kind of way the lawyer types do. It's a wonderful time of ever expanding copy right laws
soooo with 3-d printers we can make our own anime figurines?
ty psj for this sig
That's like saying its ok to torrent a copy of a movie that you already bought on DVD.
is it??
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
No, actually that's not at all the same thing. You misunderstood the part of the process that is ok. The same thing would be to buy (or rent or watch in a theater) a movie, and then gather a bunch of friends and direct and film the same movie anew, including playing and recording the music, rendering the cgi and all that jazz. In the end, theoretically (but not realistically) you would have the same story filmed, but you couldn't sell it to anywhere nor screen it for money, because the story, lines, designs, and concept isn't yours.
Edit: Actually here the concept of parody comes into play, if you don't film the same story and not quite the general concept but instead parody it. I'm sure there are plenty of examples, but one closest to me (geographically) would be the Star Wreck movie. Have a look at it to get a bit vague and controversial idea of what can and cannot be done in terms of movies.
The torrenting part is illegal since it involves providing to others, but I'm pretty sure you are allowed to have personal copies of media you've purchased (assuming they were created by you, though this aspect can't feasibly be tested). What's illegal in the media case is providing them to others. As to recreating something that you'd bought that was a product, instead of media that would be a whole new issue. Instead of just copyright infringement you'd potentially be committing a patent violation as well. If I buy a nifty TV stand from some store study it's design thoroughly and then go to my woodshed and start cranking out copies and selling them to my neighbors I'd be violating a copyright. But even if I just filled my house with dresser copies i'd still technically be violating the patent on the item.
This was a foggy part for me, but from what I gathered by reading wikipedia it looks like it could indeed be so. If it is true, then what I said in my first post about replacing a broken joystick handle would also be potentially illegal.
However, it seems like initiating a lawsuit for an infringement is horribly expensive, so I doubt the joystick manufacturer would bother as long as nobody is trying to sell the spare parts (because the manufacturer would then lose money as people would otherwise buy the whole product anew (at least I haven't ever seen official joystick replacement parts on sale...)).
In general, furniture is not copyrightable. The exceptions to this would be particularly novel, artistic pieces of furniture. But for the most part, you can make knockoffs of your dresser and it's legal. You can sell them, and it's legal. Copyright applies only to literary and artistic works. (There's some grey area there, furniture is copyrightable to the extent that furniture is art, but I don't believe most furniture, particularly the stuff a layman would be able to and want to make copies of, falls under the category of art)
Most furniture is also not patentable, because the basic design and implementation of furniture in general is well-known and obvious. Now, if you come up with a novel way to connect two pieces of wood, that would be patentable if nobody's ever done it before. Things like recliner mechanisms are also patentable, if they're new ideas. However, consider that the term of patents (including renewal terms) for most furniture ideas would have expired quite a while ago. Most of the ideas in most furniture would now be in the public domain.
The joystick is probably trademarked. Trademarks only really apply within the marketplace, so as long as you're not marketing them, you can pretty much infringe on them with impunity.
More Punishment for speaking 'out of line'
Coming so soon after the Imus incident I suspect they were suspended quickly to avoid letting the situation reach that level of notoriety. However since this was Satellite radio I'm starting to worry that there may be no haven left for people who say things that may make others uncomfortable. While I understand that they said some messed up stuff, it's not like people who listen to their show aren't expecting 'shock radio' they're listening to shock jocks. So in that case what grounds were there for punishing them, other than they made jokes about powerful people? If they'd made those same jokes about some girl on the street (which I heard them do many times back before they were kicked off of broadcast radio the first time) it wouldn't be important. Are Condoleeza Rice and Queen Elizabeth somehow too good to be the butt of sex jokes? And if so, why them and not everyone?
Last edited by Yukimura; Wed, 05-16-2007 at 02:32 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
