Mouse position relative to screen

[Paul Lutus]

Don't bother arguing with Paul. It's pointless. Once he's made up his
mind, no amount of evidence, logic, or yelling can change it.

This is false. Examine the evidence, which shows I regularly acknowledge
errors. But there is an important precondition -- I have to have made an
error. In this case, I didn't.

The OP, by contrast, has taken the position that, because he can force a
mouse position without a visual component, therefore he can read a mouse
position without a visual component, and no amount of evidence will even
persuade him that he has taken this position, must less that it is wrong.

What this means is that your view above is entirely misdirected.

 

[Carl Howells]

This is false. Examine the evidence, which shows I regularly acknowledge
errors. But there is an important precondition -- I have to have made an
error. In this case, I didn't.

The OP, by contrast, has taken the position that, because he can force a
mouse position without a visual component, therefore he can read a mouse
position without a visual component, and no amount of evidence will even
persuade him that he has taken this position, must less that it is wrong.

What this means is that your view above is entirely misdirected.

My view isn't based on this thread. This thread just reinforced it. I
formed my view after another thread, several years ago.

If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
internet was copyrighted, and I pointed out that there were a small
number of exceptions, literary works available online for which the
copyright had long since expired.

Anyway, I'm as unlikely to change my mind as you are, and arguing will
get us nowhere. As such, any further participation in this thread on my
part will be strictly on-topic.

 

[Paul Lutus]

Carl Howells wrote:

/ ...

My view isn't based on this thread. This thread just reinforced it. I
formed my view after another thread, several years ago.

The crowd waits, breathless, for the evidence.

If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
internet was copyrighted,

It is. You just don't understand copyright law. Under current law, the act
of publishing confers a copyright to any work not already copyrighted. The
former and the latter are therefore both copyrighted.

Source:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Quote:

"Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is
'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time."

You are entirely, completely, wrong.

and I pointed out that there were a small
number of exceptions,

Yes, there are exceptions, none posted on the Internet, and not the case you
suggested, and my original point was all Internet content is copyrighted
automatically by virtue of its posting.

literary works available online for which the
copyright had long since expired.

An expired copyright is a copyright! My God, this is your example? Works
that are in the public domain are still copyrighted, that is the basis of
their being in the public domain. The way you establish that a work is in
the public domain is by looking up the copyright. In fact, that is the only
way.

Q. "Can I copy this document without permission"?
A. "First, you must be sure it is in the public domain."
Q. "How do I do that?"
A. "Look up the copyright."
Q. "What if there is no copyright?"
A. "Then by publishing it, you create one."

All. Published. Works. Are. Copyrighted.

There are two possibilities for Internet content:

1. A work that is already copyrighted when it is posted. Such a work is
copyrighted in advance of its posting.

2. A work that is not already copyrighted when it is posted. Such a work is
copyrighted through being posted.

Anyway, I'm as unlikely to change my mind as you are,

I just proved you wrong again, and no, your chances to argue me out of a
trivial legal fact are slight.

and arguing will get us nowhere.

No, but evidence works wonders. You were and are wrong about copyrights,
your only evidentiary example.

As such, any further participation in this thread on my
part will be strictly on-topic.

Too late for that. But an opportunity to educate yourself about copyright
law waits, dormant, as it has for years.

I cannot imagine you have spent years fuming about this imagined slight when
you could instead have done a 30-second Google search.

Now, folks, watch Mr. Howells fail to acknowledge his error.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

My view isn't based on this thread. This thread just reinforced it.
I formed my view after another thread, several years ago.

If you care, it was a thread in which you claimed everything on the
internet was copyrighted, and I pointed out that there were a small
number of exceptions, literary works available online for which the
copyright had long since expired.

Anyway, I'm as unlikely to change my mind as you are, and arguing will
get us nowhere. As such, any further participation in this thread on
my part will be strictly on-topic.

For what it's worth, I agree. Paul has trouble "playing with others".

 

[Paul Lutus]

For what it's worth, I agree. Paul has trouble "playing with others".

No, I have trouble with people who don't know how to think or do research.

 

[Paul Lutus]

Now, folks, watch Mr. Howells fail to acknowledge his error.

As I expected, instead of posting his acknowledgment, Mr. Howells has
contacted me by e-mail and assured me he will not confess his error in
public.

The irony, which will not be lost on the readers of this newsgroup, is this
is what Mr. Howells earlier tried to accuse me of doing.

 

[Chris Uppal]

It is. You just don't understand copyright law. Under current law, the act
of publishing confers a copyright to any work not already copyrighted. The
former and the latter are therefore both copyrighted.

Is there actually any point to all this ?

-- chris

 

[Paul Lutus]

Is there actually any point to all this ?

Certainly. It just has nothing whatever to do with this newsgroup's topic.
Please note that I didn't create the digression, although I am guilty of
prolonging it.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Paul Lutus wrote:

....and then Carl Howells said...

Is there actually any point to all this ?

-- chris

No, probably not, but in fairness to paul, (if there is such a thing ),
you dropped the attribution to Carl Howells, which IMO makes paul look a
smidgeon worse.

Whatever. {shrug}

 

[Chris Uppal]

No, probably not, but in fairness to paul, (if there is such a thing ),
you dropped the attribution to Carl Howells, which IMO makes paul look a
smidgeon worse.

My policy is normally to trim ruthlessly, and never to include more than the
top-level attribution, but in this case I can see that that resulted in an
unfair distribution of credit.

Apologies to both gents.

;-^

-- chris

 

[qed]

Solution

How do I get the position of the mouse relative to the top left of the
screen. The MouseMotionListener works relative to some component of the app
but what if I have no visual component and I want the absolute position of
the mouse?

thx

Point mousePosition = java.awt.MouseInfo.getPointerInfo().getLocation();

 

[chrisbster]

I think it's...

import java.awt.*;
PointerInfo a = MouseInfo.getPointerInfo();
Point b = a.getLocation();
int x = (int)b.getX();
int y = (int)b.getY();