Author Discovers Assassin's Creed Uses Same Cliche'd SciFi Trope As His Book... Sues For Infringement
from the genetic-history?-really? dept
Ah, ownership society. We see this all the time with successful books, movies and TV shows -- where suddenly someone (generally a complete nobody) discovers that a popular media vehicle is based on a similar generic idea that they once wrote about too... and they insist that the successful work must be infringing. I guess we can add video games to that list as well. Ubisoft has apparently been sued by an author you've likely never heard of, John Beiswenger, who wrote some book whose premise has a vague similarity to the premise of Ubisoft's popular Assassin's Creed game. Both stories apparently involve genetic memory -- the idea that memories can be passed down from your ancestors.But that seems to be about as far as the similarities go. One would have hoped that a lawyer would have explained to Beiswenger that copyright only covers specific expression, rather than generic idea, but apparently that didn't happen. Of course, as Julian Sanchez points out, the idea of "genetic memory" is such a common sci-fi trope that there's a whole page dedicated to listing out stories that use the concept -- many of which predate Beiswenger's book (and nearly all of which were significantly more successful). Don't expect this lawsuit to go very far.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: assassin's creed, expression, john beiswenger, ownership society
Companies: ubisoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Of course, you'll never hear of the less powerful artists while the bigger corps leech off them.
And if you're going to plagiarize someone's work, of course you'll choose something obscure and someone with no financial clout.
Good to see you love financial power and it's ability to stomp on less well resourced creatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: zing!
Hey, I dare you to see how much antifreeze you can drink in one sitting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: zing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: zing!
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: zing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shill?
Shill Definition: A person engaged in covert advertising.
I'm a musician, speaking for myself and other musicians like me. Nothing false or covert in that. I just disagree with this place's attitude to selling records and copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shill?
So instead of constructive criticism or actually submitting on article (I'm sure TD would love to get others writing articles about copyright based on their own experiences and needs) you complain, whine, and generally annoy everyone to get your own way.
You sure you're not the RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shill?
Given the number of times this blog 'attacks' big entities because of their attitude to 'the poor starving artist', I think you have it all backwards.
If there already exists a long list of books using a particular trope, many predating an author who is hardly up there with Heinlein, Asimov or Clarke, they are hardly 'stealing' this idea, let alone from this particular gentleman.
Plus, there is the total lack of comprehension of the fact that copywrong covers the particular expression of an idea, not the actual idea itself.
Otherwise, Harry Potter, which 'clearly' 'plagiarises' Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic, would never have got anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shill?
Yeah, nothing covert in your "Anonymous Coward" name. We could instantly tell you were a musician!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zing!
Nope.. clocked him at about a minute last week.
Having said that, I still take comfort in the fact he doesn't even seem to know what we are talking about let alone have a point to make.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nothing until proven of course, but Masnick doesn't even like the idea of a small guy challenging a more successful one on a case of plagiarism.
The small guy claims his book plot has been plagiarized for the game.
That's what plagiarism is, copying someone else's ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Massive, categorical FAIL.
You never answered the question either. What, SPECIFICALLY, was plagiarized?
Double FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Definition: Plagiarism is the action or practice of taking and submitting or presenting the thoughts, writings or other work of someone else as though it is your own work.
What, SPECIFICALLY, was plagiarized?
Quote: The suit alleges that the video game series is SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to "Link," a novel he published in 2003.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Definition: Plagiarism is the action or practice of taking and submitting or presenting the thoughts, writings or other work of someone else as though it is your own work."
But not mere ideas that have been around in other forms for nearly 100 years.
"What, SPECIFICALLY, was plagiarized?
Quote: The suit alleges that the video game series is SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to "Link," a novel he published in 2003."
Except its not. It only shares the BASIC idea, that has been around for nearly 100 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well that's just Techdirt's take on it.
It isn't a 'massive fail' unless it's tested in the courts and the author is found to be wrong. That's why we have laws and courts, so kangaroo courts like Techdirt don't have the last word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is a massive fail for society as a whole that people choose to waste their own time and the justice system's time (and possibly channel their own money to lawyers) for no good reason.
<snarkmode>
If this phenomenon becomes more widespread, authors everywhere will be going bankrupt paying lawyer's fees and court fees. Don't you even think of the authors?</snarkmode>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
genetic memory in literature
No, sorry, wrong again, BZZZZT.
Here is a short list of "Genetic memory in fiction":
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Genetic_memory_in_fiction
That was the second result in my google search btw. I can see why Google scares the scam artists to badly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: genetic memory in literature
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeneticMemory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: genetic memory in literature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is against the law? No. It will get you kicked out of college, but good luck with suing. Plagiarism is not copyright infringement, although if you take someone's work and copy it, discard their name and post it as your own, you can be sued for copyright infringement, but otherwise good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
REally you guys have got to do a lot more readin' and learnin' if you want to just ridicule people who disagree with your view.
I have a couple of pages of Google links, but I'll just post a few:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2023036/Lady-Gaga-faces-new-lawsuit-Judas-plagi arism-claims.html
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/oprah-sued-plagiarism-author-polit ical-32841
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/767464--j-k-rowling-sued-for-plagiarism
ht tp://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/74117/50-Cent-Sued-For-Plagiarism
http://www.spin.com/articles/ coldplay-sued-plagiarism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism
"sued for plagiarism - sued for plagiarism - sued for plagiarism"
It's essentially copyright infringement in law, but 'plagiarism' is the very commonly used term describing the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you not read the claim, apply a little common sense, and concede that a lot of this lawsuit is really reaching?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, regardless, so why are posters so hung up on the two?
did you read the claims in the complaint? They are very broad and hardly enough to be infringing.
I just favour the little guy having his day in court, not an anti-copyright blog shouting him down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because if you found a kid downloading music, and took him to court for charges of plagiarism, you'd be laughed out of court.
>I just favour the little guy having his day in court, not an anti-copyright blog shouting him down.
Where were you when Tanya Andersen had to fight the RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't for the life of me think why you are confusing two different wrongs; copying of ideas and the copying of a product not paid for. Both are wrong, but are of course different.
Where were you when Tanya Andersen had to fight the RIAA?
Are you claiming she didn't have her day in court?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/andersen-relentless-in-quest-to-nail-the-ria a.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright conflated in your post at Apr 24th, 2012 @ 5:32pm
.
And your conflation of big vs. little where if you had a consistent freaking pseudonym, it would be obviously you pretty much always side with the big. Prove me wrong on that one by choosing a pseudonym.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm claiming that what you claim to believe in doesn't make sense. It seems that you're only willing to support the little guy when copyright is involved.
Oh, and if you've actually read Techdirt at all you'd know that Techdirt has called Ubisoft out on a ton of dick moves the company has made, so it's not about supporting the "big guy" - but it looks like argumentation is not your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL, everything in your statement is wrong. And no, just because he's a little guy doesn't make him right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If so, then, you're what one might call "litigious." In other words, you think that court is the best place to bring any and all arguments, often without vetting them in advance. You're also what the rest of the world considers a drain on the system--you would cost defendants in meritless lawsuits money, and also drain the public fisc that pays for these suits.
Just because someone is relatively smaller than his adversary in a given dispute does not automatically confer laudable "little-guy" status on him. For that, he has to also have justice favoring him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lady Gaga was sued for copyright infringement, not plagiarism (filed in August, 2011,) and the lawsuit has not yet been heard by a judge. Quite a few legal and news blogs say that this will go nowhere.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/oprah-sued-plagiarism-author-polit ical-32841
Again, sued for copyright infringement. Dismissed on March 18, 2011 with prejudice. You lose.
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/767464--j-k-rowling-sued-for-plagiarism
In England. And dismissed. You lose again.
ht tp://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/74117/50-Cent-Sued-For-Plagiarism
Filed this month. Just because someone sues doesn't mean that they automatically win. Also, sued for copyright infringement, not plagiarism. Jury hasn't even been impaneled yet.
http://www.spin.com/articles/ coldplay-sued-plagiarism
Again, sued for copyright infringement. Dismissed on September 19, 2009 with prejudice because of Settlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism
Nothing here says anything about plagiarism being against the law. However, it reaffirms what I said, that you can be sued for copyright infringement, not plagiarism.
Might want to check the pages of google links, because they aren't doing what you think they are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heehee. Now that was funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now here is another pirate author trying to infringe on the rights of the content owner defying Universal and even given advice to some schmuck on how to evade the law.
https://torrentfreak.com/repo-man%E2%80%99s-alex-cox-move-sites-overseas-to-kill-copyright-com plaints-120424/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote: The suit alleges that the video game series is SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to "Link," a novel he published in 2003."
Give specific examples of how the works are "substantially similar". Otherwise you haven't answered the question at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just support little guys being able to take big guys to court if they feel PLAGIARIZED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what's with the emotional attacks on Techdirt, I mean if you were campaigning with your big boy pants on for the little guy, you should probably focus on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, right, John.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of your regular failings is that you won't take facts into account. You FEEL that infringement is theft. You FEEL that piracy is the biggest problem. You FEEL that Mike supports piracy. You FEEL that you're intelligent. Sadly, none of these feelings are backed by fact or the law.
Nobody's saying that he shouldn't be able to take Ubisoft to court for any real problem. However, he needs a basis rather more solid than the FEELING that he's been wronged or that he FEELS that the profits from the AC series belong in his bank account. He needs facts, and proof that significant portions of the game were copied from him. A common trope that predates his work is not proof.
So, the facts of the case are considered. They're found to be lacking. Either present your own facts to prove that this guy was plagiarised, or STFU. Feel free to return and gloat if Mike's prediction is wrong, but I somehow doubt either of those things will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only presenting the expression of those thoughts without citation is plagiarism. And only then if uncredited. It is also a far different thing from copyright infringement, since the standards are academic, not legal.
Presenting thoughts you have experienced from someone else in a scholarly paper, or otherwise is simply your acquired opinion without citation so of weak support for your thesis.
Your definition is simply incorrect. Nothing there about expression From dictionary.com:
pla·gia·rism
[pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off.
2.
a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation: “These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said, tossing them angrily on the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could be wrong but I'm reasonably sure that's public domain and also much copied :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a bit silly, especially when you take into account things that aren't mentioned in the lawsuits (for example, the Knights Templar are the main villains in AC, which explains both the presence of biblical references and an order of assassins).
It's just the usual thing that happens with these lawsuits - somebody creates a successful product, someone less successful decides they want a piece and tries to claim their ideas were stolen. It happens with virtually every successful book and movie, this is only notable because it's a videogame for a change. This won't get anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cognitive dissonance at its best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hmm, never said i was angry.
I've been calmly putting the opposing view to anti arts industry, anti copyright slanted propaganda.
Find anywhere where I have abused anyone personally. So far other Techdirters have called me an a-hole, an idiot, wouldn't piss on me if i was burning, a shill, a troll. Seems more like you are angry with my platform than I am with yours.
Long live intellectual debate, alive and kicking.... elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, we look forward to seeing you posting 'for the little guy' every time one of them keeps being put down by the big companies and content controllers.
Pick a screen name and put your money where your big mouth is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're an AC, so how is anyone able to do that? The problem is that in the entire time I've been coming here, there have always been a handful of ACs who are abusive, and it's only natural to assume that any AC who takes a rude or aggressive tone is one of those. While I don't think it's useful to heap abuse on these ACs, it's quite understandable why that happens. It's a tit-for-tat kind of thing.
If you want to offer an opposing point of view and to be taken seriously, then you should start using a consistent name so people can tell it's you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/18163418570/chilling-effects-copyfraud-blockin g-researcher-fair-use-scaring-him-into-staying-quiet-about-it.shtml#comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your selective memory has blinded you to the fact that Techdirt has often come down in favour of the little guy. eg here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art .. Stargate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art .. Stargate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art .. Stargate
First that popped into my head was Dune by Frank Herbert, 1965. But I'm sure there's something earlier.
You can always check out http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeneticMemory for more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prior Art .. Stargate
I was just watching an SG1 episode the other night just recently that focused heavily on the implications of the whole genetic memory thing.
Prior art doesn't have to be ancient to invalidate someone else's claim. SG1 just happens to be a recent prominent example of the concept in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the freedom of speech and democracy that you guys LOVE championing so much.
Get used to it, or get out of the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 24th, 2012 @ 4:08pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you are wrong you exhibit a tendency to call the people pointing out you are wrong trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rubbish.
As someone who is an independent artist i have a keen interest in anything that seeks to weaken my ability to protect my hard work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every individual who attempts to abuse copyright for their personal gain is increasing the damage to society and all other artists of any type by encouraging them to simply avoid even trying because they might get sued. Litigation should never be taken lightly, such as seems to be the case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Man, I wish I knew who you were so I could stop buying your stuff. I tend to only buy from independent artists (actually, that is all I buy now-a-days.)
But I don't want to support independent artists that treat me the same way the RIAA does. I like supporting people who treat me with the same respect I treat them, and don't accuse me of stealing the stuff I buy from them. I suspect, given your childishness that I probably don't like your music anyway, so I guess it really isn't that important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I don't want to support independent artists that treat me the same way the RIAA does. I like supporting people who treat me with the same respect I treat them
I hope you do. Meanwhile there is a distinct lack of support and respect for professional musicians on Techdirt unless they fit your narrow type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? I support professional musicians by going to their concerts. I know that they receive money by people going to their concerts, not buying their albums. Like all other humans, I don't go to concerts of professional musicians who don't fit into my narrow type because, well, they don't fit into my narrow type. I don't listen to Rap music (well, most Rap.) I don't listen to Country music either. Why should I buy the music I don't want to listen to? (And no, I figure you are going to say something like don't download it either, I don't download what I don't like listening to either.)
Why should I support musicians I don't have any interest in listening to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Support
Your funding model is outdated.
Records are a performance just as valid as any concert. Many musicians don't play concerts, or don't play many concerts, and many not internationally. So you tend to support local musicians only?
Many musicians also release their own music, or in 50/50 deals with independent labels. That's the beauty of the internet. And new business ideas.
In reality, all you are doing is claiming to support live performance, while consuming recordings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Support
At this time, I am calling the bullshit flag. You're an idiot. Keep tilting at windmills.
In reality, all you are doing is claiming to support live performance, while consuming recordings.
Wow...putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say I wasn't consuming recordings. I buy music (from Amazon MP3, itunes, CD-Baby, etc., and from the musicians own website.) What I said was that I support professional musicians by going to their concerts. If you aren't touring, why is that my fault. I don't get paid for not showing up to work, why should you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Support
I should get a raise right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Support
Oh wait, you mean recordings. Sure they are a performance. But they are infinitely reproducible, and generally considered to be of lower value than a live performance. In part, *because of* the ease of reproduction. Read some Econ 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think this is 100% incorrect.
What there is is a distinct lack of support for is copyright abuse. That is independent of the idea of support & respect for professional musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All the more reason to realize that EVERY story has been told already. So better use your hard work to create entertaining variaton instead of wasting it on a pointless lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like so many here, I only hope that I've not been inadvertently supporting you financially while you tilt at windmills and attack customers for daring to point out reality to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is the epitome of trolling.
You Sir/Madam are the Awesome Troll of Awesomeness.
We bow down to your trolling skills and understand that we are not worthy of you posting here.
We must meditate until we are ready for your teachings on being a troll , so please Sensei leave us to our contemplations for at least one year
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False-martyr nonsense.
You make insults and avoid saying anything meaningful.
Some false-martyr nonsense won't alter that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely correct! The funny thing is that I do see commenters offering opposing viewpoints without being called a troll.
You know why> Because they aren't.
Commenters who are abusive, rude, insulting, or make unsubstantiated accusations get called trolls because they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's all you could find?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeneticMemory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's all you could find?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's all you could find?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's all you could find?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's all you could find?
...what, sorry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's all you could find?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh.. DUNE
And the concept goes back at least to Jung, who was probably dead before this author was born.
I'm guessing this idiot is so ignorant of his artistic forbears he isn't even being malicious, just that clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh.. DUNE
Since (a) ideas are property, (b) property is inherited, and (c) Genetic Memory exists, Beiswenger clearly has a case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, maybe it does take Mikes rabid, but ignorant fans to read two small paragraphs, while getting mommy to help you with the big words....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, since your initial musings still escape you. We do vouch for the little guy, unless, such as in this case, he has his head up his ass. You folks must keep good company up there in the nether region.
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, is this the best you have?
No wonder you won't pick a consistent handle.
Then the stupid ad hom on the whole readership.
Not many mouth breathers here, but you are definitely one.
FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Have Got To Be Kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Have Got To Be Kidding
Unfortunately, this is rarely applied. Hence, legal system pollution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Have Got To Be Kidding
Because if he believes this and doesn't inform his client he is being highly unethical and could be sanctioned or even disbarred by the appropriate Law Society he belongs too.
Lawyers have not only a duty to the client to tell them all the facts and law, but also to the court to not bring what they consider frivolous or malicious suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gauntlet thrown....still lying on the ground
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120417/16432118532/when-kids-major-label-execs-get-acc used-infringement.shtml
after several DAYS.
This is why no one on this site takes your shrill pro-copyright whining seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gauntlet thrown....still lying on the ground
I have no real love for the major labels, and could care less about Jamie Iovine, nor his father actually.
If Jamie has done wrong he should be punished just like everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gauntlet thrown....still lying on the ground
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gauntlet thrown....still lying on the ground
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G.I. Joe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genetic Memory
Some also think that the general fear of snakes is due to a genetic memory imbedded in most, if not all, mammals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like in Dune?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The genes must flow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have dealt with this lawyer...
I seriously thought the lawyer was just a shameless bully, but now...
(The girl kept her domain.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have dealt with this lawyer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arcadia of my Youth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arcadia of my Youth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oddly...
Eric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oddly...
Eric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oddly...
And any author who has a red "do not press button" on his website is my kind of crazy (especially when you see what happens when you press it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Don't See A Problem. By The Way...Please Read!
My name is Mr. Stickem, and I am contacting you through this forum on behalf of my client, who wishes to remain Anonymous at this time.
It has been brought to our attention that you are currently in violation of 4 patents for which my client holds exclusive rights, which are the following:
1) U.S. Patent #1-“Letter”
2) U.S. Patent #2-”Word”
3) U.S. Patent #3-”Sentence”
4) U.S. Patent #4-”Punctuation”
TechDirt Posters, this forum is clearly in violation of said patents. However, my client is a reasonable person and is willing to agree to an out of court settlement to avoid further violations and to license the further use of his patents with a very generous offer. If you agree to settle out of court you can continue to use my clients patents for the remainder of the year and may apply thereafter for a yearly extension.
The terms of the settlement are as follows:
1) You agree to pay my client, for prior violations, the amount of 14 quadrillion U.S. Dollars. You may think that this amount is erroneous, but I can assure you that it is.
2) You discontinue using letters (U.S. Patent #1) to form the word (U.S. Patent #2) “Hollywood” (U.S. Patent #1, #2). Again, my client wishes to remain Anonymous.
Please carefully consider my clients very generous offer, as he is inclined to cancel at any time and move forward with litigation.
In the interim, please CEASE and DESIST from further use of my clients patents.
Sincerely,
Mr. Stickem.
Law Offices of Stoppem, Stickem & Runn LLP
5555 Melrose Avenue
Hollywood, CA. 90038
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Don't See A Problem. By The Way...Please Read!
My name is Mr. StickYouToo, and I am contacting you through this forum on behalf of my client, who wishes to remain Anonymous as well at this point of time.
It has been brought to our attention that you are currently in violation of 1 patent(s) for which my client holds exclusive rights, which are the following:
1) U.S. Patent #0-“out of court settlement”
Mr. Stickem, your request (if fulfilled)will be clearly in violation of said patent(s). However, my client is a reasonable person and is willing to agree to an out of court settlement(U.S. patent #0) to avoid further violations and to license the further use of his patent(s) with a very generous offer. If you agree to settle out of court(U.S. patent #0) you can continue to use my clients patent(s) for the remainder of the year and may apply thereafter for a yearly extension.
The terms of the settlement are as follows:
1) You agree to pay my client, for prior violations, the amount of 14 quadrillion and one (14 * 10 to the power of 15 + one) U.S. Dollars. You may think that this amount is erroneous, but I can assure you that it is not.
2) You discontinue using the said patent(s) (U.S. patent #0) without prior approval of my client. Again, my client wishes to remain Anonymous.
Please carefully consider my clients very generous offer, as he is inclined to cancel at any time and move forward with litigation.
In the interim, please CEASE and DESIST from further use of my clients patent(s).
Sincerely,
Mr. StickYouToo.
Law Offices of Screw'em, StickYouToo & Runn LLP
666 Melrose Avenue
GreyWood, NA. 00000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Don't See A Problem. By The Way...Please Read!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the hell are ebooks so unbelievably expensive? Have publishers and amazon lost their damn minds? If I can find a like new print edition for .49 + shipping why would I pay $15 for a kindle version that I can't share with anybody, I can't donate to the library to be shared with my community, and that I don't even own because at any time Amazon can yank it off my device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The truth
Be careful. The authors of CivCTP might sue you next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, seeing as the Animus 2 is presented through a visual expression whilst the Link is presented through a literary expression, the territory for copyright is not actually entered.
Of course, I suspect it will come to a trial or settlement over that particular claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The prolific AC above's repeated (evidenceless) ranting notwithstanding there's little in the posted claim that's not generic (plot) devices. Besides, in the fictional space genetic memory access is "obvious to those skilled in the art" so wouldn't be patentable anyway :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just vote copyRIGHT, not copywrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without knowing what your art is it's a little difficult to tell what it's like.
Most people will give an opinion on what they're given to work with. In this case, nothing. Are you expecting to be paid for nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, since you've never identified yourself and you seem to spend every waking moment on here whining about both potential customers and innovative competitors, what conlusions are we meant to draw? I've certainly never seen a successful businessman whine so much.
"I just vote copyRIGHT, not copywrong."
No, you vote for the stripping away of all rights from those who disagree with you, and the destruction of new business models that don't fit the market as it used to be 30 years ago. This you support no matter how destructive it is to both consumers and artists. That's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please
They're betting some court feels that Ubi-soft will pay up rather than go to court, and that some people will pick up copies of dude's book out of curiosity. Everyone paying any attention to this at all is just feeding the troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You just wasted your time and money on this one, jack....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Of course, this completely ignores the fact that, according to Wikipedia, the filming was complete in 2009, but had some release delays due to bankruptcy. However, since I had never heard of this film until after I wrote my novel, I'm sure I'd have a case...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]