If you put a lot of effort into a project and don't want it stolen, please REGISTER THE COPYRIGHT.
0. Register the copyright within 3 months after you publish the project.
1. Register online at https://eco.copyright.gov/ - it costs $35 (or so) and is not particularly difficult to do.
1.1 registration is not difficult, but it is tedious and involves navigating a super-old government website that kinda sucks.
2. You can also hire a lawyer to register for you, which costs around $200-300.
3. Once you have the copyright registration, you can write a polite letter to whomever is stealing your stuff (or write a nasty letter, depending on your mood).
4. You can force them to pay you compensation for stealing your copyrighted content.
5. If your stolen stuff is being hosted by a third party provider (like imgur or whatever), you can send the host a DMCA takedown request, and the host will quickly remove the offending content.
that is just US law. Milage may vary in other countries.
edit - a lot of downvoting on this comment. Too snarky? Too anti-open-source? i thought this is useful info. Sorry to offend!
I used to litigate copyright cases. While your comment is technically true, for 98% of cases, you will need the copyright registration for any amount of meaningful copyright protection.
good point for training purposes but for a cycling simulation you would want head wind, tailwind and wind while going down hills. You should be able to coast down a hill and know you are going fast. Also could be used to simulate drafting
Well, right now it's still technically illegal to download them, unless & until Springer actually says some different license. Not that anyone would be prosecuted, obviously; one could clearly claim that it was obvious that Springer intended to distribute them at the very least for personal non-commercial use, even if Springer didn't say so explicitly anywhere. If the terms are even more liberal than that, so much the better... But it ain't so till Springer says it's so :-).
"You may solely for private, educational, personal, scientific, or research purposes access, browse, view, display, search, download and print the Content."
It isn't, assuming Springer doesn't have contracts with author precluding it. Springer is either the copyright holder or is authorised to distribute, and they are explicitly making the works available for download. You don't need any additional permission.
Any license changes they publish are important to establish your right to make any subsequent copies, though.
there is somewhat of a difference between "purchasing something for 0.00 with appropriate distribution after creating an account at a webshop" and "torrenting a pdf"
I think it's 'malpractice' risk. Like, if a lawyer give bad legal advice on a forum, and someone reads it and follows it and then loses a ton of money because of it, and then the reader sues the lawyer for malpractice.
The plaintiff would never win the case. But lawyers like to avoid being the target of malpractice claims, even if they're super-weak / spurious / whatever.
I think that is the situation.
As a lawyer, I personally don't mind writing about the law or answering general questions on the internet. I wouldn't answer someone's specific questions about their personal legal situation though (without an engagement letter).
I think the answer is this: the law requires the exact document - a shareholder consent.
It's binary. Either you have the consent or your don't. The judges don't want to be bothered with shades of gray. Allowing an exception for docs that are "close enough" would lead to long and expensive arguments about whether something was "close enough" or not.
Sure, the rule is harsh, but there's an upside. You can look at a corporate doc and know right away whether it's sufficient. No debate. It's either 100% correct, or else it doesn't pass muster.
On balance, is it a good rule? I don't know! It's just one way to write a rule, and there are some upsides (certainty) and downsides (harsh results for a clerical error).
I agree, simplifying would be great. You do realize, however, that a large part of the legal profession is to intentionally write broadly, imprecisely, and flexibly to avoid traps. Other kinds of legal writing are intentionally precise in some clauses so as to add complexity to deliberately avoid immediate comprehension.
In the manner of discourse such as you have exemplified with your comments under your current pseudonym, it is difficult to ascertain your intended trop, voice, or topic. Thus, I hereby request that you rephrase in a more course or colloquial or blunt manner.
Your sense of humor is dizzying and perhaps difficult to find.
If you want more blunt - I speak multiple languages at native or near native level, including two since birth. Spoken English, especially by your average American is rarely to the point, clear, and pleasant. Don't write like you speak, because the average person sucks at it. Instead, know your subject and audience and write to them. Avoid overgeneralizing because it's easy to make an ass of yourself like PG.
Regarding legalese, it is hard to understand and that is intentional. Could it be any clearer for you or will you down-vote again?
Champerty is the (largely defunct) rule against funding someone else's lawsuit.
I always thought that was a funny word. Champerty. But TIL that it comes from the fact that in "England, litigants could hire ‘champions’ to represent them in ‘trial by battle.’ By the late 13th century, these strongmen were being compared to prostitutes, and their prevalence hastened the movement of dispute resolution to the courtroom. During the Middle Ages, this concept of ‘champerty’ — assisting another person’s lawsuit in exchange for a share of the proceeds — emerged as part of the larger ecclesiastical taboo against usury."
Although the type of conduct that might constitute champerty and maintenance has evolved over time, the essential thrust of the two concepts has remained the same for at least two centuries. Maintenance is directed against those who, for an improper motive, often described as wanton or officious intermeddling, become involved with disputes (litigation) of others in which the maintainer has no interest whatsoever and where the assistance he or she renders to one or the other parties is without justification or excuse. Champerty is an egregious form of maintenance in which there is the added element that the maintainer shares in the profits of the litigation. Importantly, without maintenance there can be no champerty.
And most of them have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. (See payday loans, title loans, hard money loans, merchant cash advance, etc., etc.)
preconizer arrythmically to be or not to be that is the question whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles spearfishes stifles nonswearer belabouring apperceptionism
0. Register the copyright within 3 months after you publish the project.
1. Register online at https://eco.copyright.gov/ - it costs $35 (or so) and is not particularly difficult to do.
1.1 registration is not difficult, but it is tedious and involves navigating a super-old government website that kinda sucks.
2. You can also hire a lawyer to register for you, which costs around $200-300.
3. Once you have the copyright registration, you can write a polite letter to whomever is stealing your stuff (or write a nasty letter, depending on your mood).
4. You can force them to pay you compensation for stealing your copyrighted content.
5. If your stolen stuff is being hosted by a third party provider (like imgur or whatever), you can send the host a DMCA takedown request, and the host will quickly remove the offending content.
that is just US law. Milage may vary in other countries.
edit - a lot of downvoting on this comment. Too snarky? Too anti-open-source? i thought this is useful info. Sorry to offend!