I don't read it the way you say. The more restrictive terms are for use of services. If you use firefox, you have to agree not to use the Mozilla services for the prohibited categories, but there are many uses of the browser that are not using Mozilla services.
If you accessed graphic content using the browser, you are not violating the terms unless you put that content up on a mozilla service somewhere. The obvious issue would be some type of bookmark sync. If you bookmarked a graphic url you might violate the terms when it syncs to mozilla, but even then it would be hard to argue that you are granting access to your future self, so unless you used a bookmark sharing service provided by mozilla, I would say its a gray area. So disable bookmark sync. I typically disable all external services in my browser so this would not be relevant.
But my point is that even though you have to agree to the use policy when downloading the browser, it doesn't mean it governs all use of the browser.
The use of the noun copy probably came from the act of copying, but both uses predated the word copyright, so that doesn't really help answer the question.
So I guess the relevant distinction I see is whether the owner of the copyright controls the act of copying a string or controls the string itself in any artifact anywhere. We’re saying that if they meant copy the verb it’s the former and if they meant copy the noun it’s the latter. Is that right?
I see what you mean about it not helping to answer the question in a direct way.
Where I’m coming from is I think that if copy and copy were of a different origin completely, like from French vs Greek or something, and the homophone-ness (homophonity?) was a coincidence, then I could see the authors of the law using the much less common industry term without considering whether people would get confused.
But if one refers to the other, it seems implausibly confusing for them to use the way less common meaning and not expect anyone to get confused in a way that would change the meaning of the law. Or was the copyright law written by the characters of mad men??? Seems more like an overreach by certain media publishers.
Forgery would require trying to pass off the copy as an original. As long as it is not pretending to be something it isn't, it is just a replica, not a forgery.
Any proof that the word copyright was intentionally referring to the noun instead of the verb? The British Statute of Anne in 1710, the first copyright statute, definitely referred to the act of copying a book, not some abstract concept of writing samples.
> Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. On the face of it, he was at war with Sweden taking something away from it… He was not taking away anything, he was returning. This is how it was. The areas around Lake Ladoga, where St Petersburg was founded. When he founded the new capital, none of the European countries recognised this territory as part of Russia; everyone recognised it as part of Sweden. However, from time immemorial, the Slavs lived there along with the Finno-Ugric peoples, and this territory was under Russia’s control. The same is true of the western direction, Narva and his first campaigns. Why would he go there? He was returning and reinforcing, that is what he was doing.
> Clearly, it fell to our lot to return and reinforce as well. And if we operate on the premise that these basic values constitute the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in achieving our goals.
Returning and reinforcing means restoring the USSR or Russian Empire's territory to Russia.
I couldn't tell from the article but it seems the $225k was a settlement, and the release of all patents was additionally part of the settlement - I doubt the court could have awarded that directly. So they took $225k + the release of the patents, and I assume that the trolls would only have agreed to that if they felt the court awarded cash value would have been significantly higher.
I see the title was fixed here. The original said 30x more vitamins, but it is only beta-carotene. They created a version of lettuce that has a little more beta carotene than Kale, basically, but not as nutrient dense in any other way.
On the other hand, kale is goitrogenic. With two little kids I like to make sure they get a good mix of vegetables which aren't all from the cabbage family. I'm lucky living in California; my local Safeway has all kinds of fresh vegetables, including various (non-cruciferous) lettuce greens, year round, but in many other places in the U.S. it's just iceberg plus cruciferous vegetables for long stretches.
Growing salad greens is probably one of the best things one can do for themselves. Why spend $5 for a pound of salad greens when you can buy 2-3lbs of seeds for that price? Which, speaking of, cheapest I’ve found for bulk seeds are GreenCover, does anyone know of any other companies selling that cheap?
Same, which is why ya grow stuff like baby greens in your shed. Larger crops require you get more creative of course, but hiding away smaller ones is doable at least.
The problem with kale is that it’s shipped with ice over the top. This itself is not a problem. But a box that won’t fall apart when the ice melts has to be slathered in pfas.(if you’ve ever received a shipment of kale you’ll know what I mean, the box is this weird stuff oily thing) Kale has staggeringly high levels of pfas that bioaccumulate in our bodies and cause organ failure.
Not a criticism of kale itself. Love the stuff. If anything an example about how 3m’s suppression of the science of pfa exposure has resulted in the largest mass poisoning in human history.
They took one of the healthiest foods on the planet and made it bad for you.
If you accessed graphic content using the browser, you are not violating the terms unless you put that content up on a mozilla service somewhere. The obvious issue would be some type of bookmark sync. If you bookmarked a graphic url you might violate the terms when it syncs to mozilla, but even then it would be hard to argue that you are granting access to your future self, so unless you used a bookmark sharing service provided by mozilla, I would say its a gray area. So disable bookmark sync. I typically disable all external services in my browser so this would not be relevant.
But my point is that even though you have to agree to the use policy when downloading the browser, it doesn't mean it governs all use of the browser.
IANAL