Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes the recent 'young Bond' books were initially just to extend the copyright. They are successful franchise of their own now.

Mr. Burning wrote:Except the copyright is held within the Tolkien Estate and Christopher Tolkien has been publishing his fathers works for many years. As long as derived works keep being published with altered fore words etc there will be no Frodo Teabaggins in space.

Its like Banardos and Peter Pan, JM Barrie gave the rights to Barnardos and they had to get another book written and published, based on Peter Pan, to keep the copyright safe, and the money rolling in.

Not true. Changing the wording doesn't do anything to extend the copyright on the original publication; it's solely contingent on the date the author died (or first publication in the case of a corporate "author"). That's why the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (brought to you by Disney) came about - Steamboat Willie was, once again, approaching the end of it's copyright in the U.S., and none of the subsequent works staring Mickey would do a thing to help.

Mark Twain had an interesting plan - for several of his books, he envisioned his heirs "remixing" then, e.g., by printing a portion of his autobiography alongside portions of Tom Sawyer, to create a "new" work (protected by copyright) to compete with the original, which would have passed into the public domain by then. He figured the value-added version would sell better.

*edit: I didn't pay attention to your UK flag, Mr. Burning. What I wrote is true for US law; I can't speak for UK copyright.

Is this an issue betweek UK vs US law? Because, in the US, there is no extending a copyright. Just because you wrote a sequel, it does not mean the original gets it's copyright extended. The sequel does have it's own, independent copyright, though.

I'm also not clear on the copyright status of characters. You are explicitly forbidden from copyrighting names, so if your character exists only in text, I don't know if there's any copyright protection for him. In the case of Mickey Mouse, he's being protected because he's a drawing and therefor his image is protected. You may be able to get a name trademarked, but that's an entirely different legal issue.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Yes, uploading will get you bit. Downloading can, too.

Again, anybody who doubts this, go ahead and test the RIAA. I'll gladly reimburse the notary and mailing fees (up to $20) of anybody who gets the RIAA to okay their downloading or copying. All I require is that you send a legally-admissable, notarized letter to the RIAA admitting significant (100s or more) copying (or downloading), and then receive an official OK back on RIAA letterhead.

In the early days RIAA had its way in courts with little doubt. Nowadays RIAA is finding it more and more difficult.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070924/020122.shtml

While I'm not interested in testing, I wouldnt also say they win hands down nowadays either.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/155769/riaa_stops_suing_individuals_are_we_home_free.html

@carmachu: there is pushback, yes, however, the RIAA is still winning big. If you want to "win" and get legal fees, you're going to need to spend well over a million yourself, because the RIAA will gladly spend several $M to protect the $100M they've collected in settlement to date.

A notarized letter admitting to unauthorized copying, and send it to the RIAA, that's a guaranteed slam dunk for them.

If 40k has taught people anything, it's not to go up against bullies with unlimited resources and determination.

Just an update: I just received my Rackham Drune Horned Raiders from CaoMao there, and they are recasts I think. The metal is different, and some of the details are not at typical Rackham quality.
That said, they are really nice recasts for the most part. Most of the detail is quite good, and there is only a little bit of the pitting one sees with cheap recasts. They are also packed to ship extremely nicely.

So, yea, I am not 100% pleased, but perhaps over 50% pleased at least. If you are looking for the genuine article, you probably don't want to be ordering from him, but as far as recasts go it is pretty decent really. :(

Maybe you are also interested in pretty decent reprints of Dollar bills now , not as good as the original but much cheaper

*L* If one could no longer acquire dollar bills otherwise, then yes, perhaps I would

Which is actually kind of funny to bring up, given that I just got back from an Econ class, and the history of free banking and currency. (Which we sadly wouldn't ever discuss, but it was in my head )

But yea, I bought them understanding they were originals, though considering Rackham hasn't produced them in years and they are really popular, and the fact he had 10 sets of 3, I was suspicious. I do avoid buying unlicensed copies of things on the moral issue that someone deserves to get paid for it, but since no one is getting paid for producing legitimate Rackham models whether I was sold forgeries or not, I don't feel too badly either. I buy all my other stuff through the Warstore or Cool Mini or Not otherwise.

Maybe you are also interested in pretty decent reprints of Dollar bills now , not as good as the original but much cheaper

If enforcement of counterfeiting was the same as recasting little army men then yes, I would be interested in some "genuine" Yankee dollars.

Also its pretty much impossible to 100% faithfully replicate a US dollar.. I ordered some FW stuff for 40% off from Russia. It was a recast but had full detail because I think the russians stole an actual mold from FW

(Hence the warning on the FW page about russia)

The other problem is that the internet is everywhere, but copyright laws are not.

Kirasu wrote:Also its pretty much impossible to 100% faithfully replicate a US dollar.. I ordered some FW stuff for 40% off from Russia. It was a recast but had full detail because I think the russians stole an actual mold from FW

(Hence the warning on the FW page about russia)

was it from mrs-velard? she's the only russian ebayer i've seen that sells FW frequently.

Yup it was her.. Ive bought a few things from her

Kirasu wrote:Also its pretty much impossible to 100% faithfully replicate a US dollar.. I ordered some FW stuff for 40% off from Russia. It was a recast but had full detail because I think the russians stole an actual mold from FW

(Hence the warning on the FW page about russia)

Do I get you right? A Russian sells FW stuff with full detail, therefore obviously they travelled to UK, broke into the Forge World warehouse and stole the moulds?
And that's why Forge World warns customers in Russia that delivery takes a bit longer? http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/News/Russia.html

The irrational hate for this ebayer is greater than I thought possible.

Kroothawk wrote:
Do I get you right? A Russian sells FW stuff with full detail, therefore obviously they travelled to UK, broke into the Forge World warehouse and stole the moulds?

I dunno about you, but it's on my list of things to do when I visit England...

1) Visit the Tower.
2) Eliminate James Bond
3) See the British Museum
4) Corporate espionage against Forgeworld.
5) Ride on of those double decker busses
6) Steal the crown jewels
7) Escape from the Tower
8) Have a high speed chase through London
9) Visit Dover
10) Drive through the chunnel.


See? Right there at Number 4!

JohnHwangDD wrote:You seem as though you think regular Americans actually have some say in our government or laws... You are very sadly misinformed, my friend.

By you, no less. All this time you lot've gone on and on about how you're a democracy, but clearly not.

No, we are not a democracy and never have been. The US is a Republic.

Todosi wrote:No, we are not a democracy and never have been. The US is a Republic.

Oh my...

Let's save the political discussion for somewhere appropriate,

For that matter, the original post would seem to be less than breaking news by this point in time, so I think we're done with this thread.