Back in the day, my friends and I would settle such disputes by playing Blades of Steel on the NES. Actually, we still do. Playing them in FPS is kinda stacked since they suck at it. :|
I remember the pissing match over it. As a language purist, I disagreed with adding such a silly word to the dictionary (not violently or anything... it IS just a dictionary), but had less of a problem with it when it made McDonalds all grumpy >:)
My first legal response would be "you're freakin Waffle House... I'll call you when I need a plateful of grease. Until then, go away".
In seriousness, it appears to be another sad example of a trademark owner thinking they can control every single instance of that particular grouping of letters coming together. Next, we'll see Coca-Cola suing VH1 for their rampant use of the word "coke" in every "I Love The 80's" episode ever made.
What happens if the next cookie-cutter teen-star writes a song about the woes of teenage employment in “McJobs”… will McDonalds sue them?
Yes you could... you just chose not to. Excellent rebuttal by the way. But, I guess, since you actually did go on to make a point, I should refer to this as being a dick and not actually rebutting.
So to your rebuttal...
"They only stopped to help spread that speech widely through technology."
Did you forget that a printing press is also 'technology'. Replace the word 'Technology' with 'method of distribution and communication' and you should be able to see the Prior Restraint issue. If a private company takes down that service, that's their choice. If the government takes down that (method of distribution and communication) for the purpose of blocking speech it doesn't like (which is exactly the reason they gave!), that is Prior Restraint.
"There is no "right to cell service in a BART station" assured in the constitution."
You keep going back to the Constitution demanding that we show you a Right to Technology... we don't have to. We start at the First Amendment and go into the Case Law that created the idea of Prior Restraint.
"Tell me exactly what speech was subject to "prior restraint"."
Any and all protected speech that was blocked by the government in its attempt to stop what it considered to be unprotected speech. Pretty simple concept.
If the government shut down printing presses in a town right before a political rally to prevent 'opponent' press from being created and distributed, would that violate the First? I do believe we've seen printing-press seizure discussed here before.
One could find printing services elsewhere, but we've seen where that seizure would violate the First Amendment through Prior Restraint. Unless, of course, I'm much mistaken here.
I think everyone else already voiced the thoughts going through my head from how this is useless and pointless to "who gives a damn". I'm sure the fans will like the new album... I'm sure there'll be some of those fans who think the M:I shtick is a neat addition; maybe to the point of humming the theme music while inserting the discs and making jokes about how they hope it doesn't self-destruct after playing. Oh man... I hope Kanye and Jay-Z don't read this and get more ideas.
Wait... no, I hope they do. That would be entertaining to watch! Old & Busted: Accusing your fans of piracy and treating them all like criminals… New Hotness: blowing their sh*t up!
"What they do on the university system can put at risk the reputation of the university."
See... this is where I have a problem with the whole thing. First, let me say I understand the need for a good reputation for universities (DUKE SUCKS!). A lot of their ability to attract attendance (and thus money) comes from that reputation. I get that.
With that said... who the hell cares about what students say to each other? It's email. This is a few students talking to each other in a way that's not polite in society's view. And?
You know what would garner more respect from me? A university that looks at a harassing string of email calling a student a Jew (derisively) and tells that student "stop opening the emails" and moves on to more important things, like the quality of education and rising costs of tuition and/or the Great Book Racket.
And if there are a bunch of emails flying around 'hurting people's feelings'... did I miss the part where college students weren’t freakin adults? Do they need hand-holding and a widdle hug to tell them everything is going to be ok every time someone makes fun of them? Seriously? So instead of preparing young adults for the world that awaits, it’s now part of the university’s job to further shelter them so that nothing ever hurts them?
If universities start taking that job of life-preparation seriously again, maybe people outside the university-sphere (like me) will care about university reputation.
Nah... if we get that 'open', they'll just introduce new regulations we would have to comply with that would include oversight into what gets sent. If you want to avoid snooping, you may as well drive over to the recipient's house and have a quiet conversation inside with a white-noise generator going and cover your lips while you talk.
Or learn Navajo... did they ever break that language yet?
I just re-read the post again and realized that it was NOT,in fact, trying to make a case of a similar relationship between Uni/Student and Employer/Employee.
I don't agree that Uni/Student is the same as Employer/Employee.
First, and obviously, I paid the Uni to go there... I wish it had been the other way.
Second, would the Uni be responsible for my actions? I know that Employers bear some responsibility for the actions of employees while in the course of business. But if I use my Uni-provided account to break the law (infringing, defamation, etc.), would the Uni be held responsible? And I mean actually held responsible, not just accused and included on a lawsuit only to be dismissed later.
While the fact that the Uni is providing that email service means they may have some standing of "well, it's our service, we're just letting you use it" to justify snooping, I don't think it's the same area as the Employer/Employee fight.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is...
Ok... I see what you mean. And that is what I meant by "recouping the costs"... but when you do the math on how much is collected and paid to the industry, the theory falls apart in the light of applying it. If what you're saying is true, and given the numbers that are being paid, the industry should be discounting the creation costs to damn near zero.
And why should this industry be so protected? When you talk about creating at a reduced cost in the hopes that it becomes profitable... that's the risk of business. I don't see the Mom & Pop sandwich shop down the street from me being given such a wonderful guarantee of ROI.
Seems rather shady that this one industry is so well-favored by the government (thru laws) that it's damn near guaranteed to succeed. If only we were all so lucky.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is...
I'm glad we agree that much of the model is broken. And until you point out what purpose the royalties acutually serve except a welfare system, I'm sticking with my opinion.
"I also don't agree that there are many artists getting "ridiculous sums of money for something they did long ago". "
You're right... that list is restricted to the ones who sue and who lobby for extensions to copyright to the point that we get into the 50+ year timeline. And all for no reason other than the sense of entitlement that they should always get paid for anything they ever do. And I disagree with that... that's welfare.
"The SEC is just assuming that Pandora discloses this clearly important "restriction" on their business so that investors aren't tricked into buying something that likely won't be profitable when the major discounts come off.
The SEC is not saying "the environment is untenable for business". That is BS and you know it."
Ok... the SEC is not saying the environment is untenable in so many words... but they are saying this: your business is relying in subsidies that will not be around forever and your model will not survive when those subsidies dry up (something Pandora has admitted). The SEC even acknowledges that the reason for that unsustainability is the rates...
"and that ordinary rates, not subject to such extraordinary measures, to which you may be subject upon the expiration of these exceptions make your current business plan unsustainable"- SEC
So what part of that ISN'T saying "the rates are too high for your business model"?
Now, you could argue that Pandora should adjust thier business model to fit with the fee schedule and just poo to them if they can't find a way to make it work. But if the fans want such a service, and you're in the way of it... how are you helping the creative innovation wanted by your customers?
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Re: Re:
Shit, Squirrel, you just got Pizzzowned! Just hang it up... headshot!
On the post: Notch Comes Up With New Plan To Settle Trademark Dispute: Quake 3 Battle
Well, if you want to update an old idea...
On the post: Notch Comes Up With New Plan To Settle Trademark Dispute: Quake 3 Battle
Re: Re: everything should be settled like this
On the post: Notch Comes Up With New Plan To Settle Trademark Dispute: Quake 3 Battle
Re: Re: This will leave people out?
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re:
On the post: Waffle House Says Rap Song Called Waffle House Violates Its Trademark
Re: Re: Wait... Waffle House?
On the post: Waffle House Says Rap Song Called Waffle House Violates Its Trademark
Wait... Waffle House?
In seriousness, it appears to be another sad example of a trademark owner thinking they can control every single instance of that particular grouping of letters coming together. Next, we'll see Coca-Cola suing VH1 for their rampant use of the word "coke" in every "I Love The 80's" episode ever made.
What happens if the next cookie-cutter teen-star writes a song about the woes of teenage employment in “McJobs”… will McDonalds sue them?
On the post: Righthaven CEO Explains Losses: 'We've Blazed Some Trails; There Are Differences Of Opinion'
Bi-winning!
On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law
Re: Re: Re:
So to your rebuttal...
Did you forget that a printing press is also 'technology'. Replace the word 'Technology' with 'method of distribution and communication' and you should be able to see the Prior Restraint issue. If a private company takes down that service, that's their choice. If the government takes down that (method of distribution and communication) for the purpose of blocking speech it doesn't like (which is exactly the reason they gave!), that is Prior Restraint.
You keep going back to the Constitution demanding that we show you a Right to Technology... we don't have to. We start at the First Amendment and go into the Case Law that created the idea of Prior Restraint.
Any and all protected speech that was blocked by the government in its attempt to stop what it considered to be unprotected speech. Pretty simple concept.
On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the government shut down printing presses in a town right before a political rally to prevent 'opponent' press from being created and distributed, would that violate the First? I do believe we've seen printing-press seizure discussed here before.
One could find printing services elsewhere, but we've seen where that seizure would violate the First Amendment through Prior Restraint. Unless, of course, I'm much mistaken here.
On the post: Jay-Z And Kanye West Go To Ridiculous Efforts To Stop Album From Leaking
Re: Re:
On the post: Jay-Z And Kanye West Go To Ridiculous Efforts To Stop Album From Leaking
All that planning...
I think everyone else already voiced the thoughts going through my head from how this is useless and pointless to "who gives a damn". I'm sure the fans will like the new album... I'm sure there'll be some of those fans who think the M:I shtick is a neat addition; maybe to the point of humming the theme music while inserting the discs and making jokes about how they hope it doesn't self-destruct after playing. Oh man... I hope Kanye and Jay-Z don't read this and get more ideas.
Wait... no, I hope they do. That would be entertaining to watch! Old & Busted: Accusing your fans of piracy and treating them all like criminals… New Hotness: blowing their sh*t up!
On the post: Court Says College Can Snoop On Students' Email
Re:
With that said... who the hell cares about what students say to each other? It's email. This is a few students talking to each other in a way that's not polite in society's view. And?
You know what would garner more respect from me? A university that looks at a harassing string of email calling a student a Jew (derisively) and tells that student "stop opening the emails" and moves on to more important things, like the quality of education and rising costs of tuition and/or the Great Book Racket.
And if there are a bunch of emails flying around 'hurting people's feelings'... did I miss the part where college students weren’t freakin adults? Do they need hand-holding and a widdle hug to tell them everything is going to be ok every time someone makes fun of them? Seriously? So instead of preparing young adults for the world that awaits, it’s now part of the university’s job to further shelter them so that nothing ever hurts them?
If universities start taking that job of life-preparation seriously again, maybe people outside the university-sphere (like me) will care about university reputation.
Sorry… rant over.
On the post: Court Says College Can Snoop On Students' Email
Re: The logical conclusion
Or learn Navajo... did they ever break that language yet?
On the post: Court Says College Can Snoop On Students' Email
Re: Same relationship?
-1 for reading-comprehension fail today. :|
On the post: Court Says College Can Snoop On Students' Email
Same relationship?
First, and obviously, I paid the Uni to go there... I wish it had been the other way.
Second, would the Uni be responsible for my actions? I know that Employers bear some responsibility for the actions of employees while in the course of business. But if I use my Uni-provided account to break the law (infringing, defamation, etc.), would the Uni be held responsible? And I mean actually held responsible, not just accused and included on a lawsuit only to be dismissed later.
While the fact that the Uni is providing that email service means they may have some standing of "well, it's our service, we're just letting you use it" to justify snooping, I don't think it's the same area as the Employer/Employee fight.
On the post: SEC Told Pandora To Be More Explicit In Its IPO That Its Business Is Likely Unsustainable Due To Crazy Licensing Rates
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is...
And why should this industry be so protected? When you talk about creating at a reduced cost in the hopes that it becomes profitable... that's the risk of business. I don't see the Mom & Pop sandwich shop down the street from me being given such a wonderful guarantee of ROI.
Seems rather shady that this one industry is so well-favored by the government (thru laws) that it's damn near guaranteed to succeed. If only we were all so lucky.
On the post: SEC Told Pandora To Be More Explicit In Its IPO That Its Business Is Likely Unsustainable Due To Crazy Licensing Rates
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is...
You're right... that list is restricted to the ones who sue and who lobby for extensions to copyright to the point that we get into the 50+ year timeline. And all for no reason other than the sense of entitlement that they should always get paid for anything they ever do. And I disagree with that... that's welfare.
On the post: SEC Told Pandora To Be More Explicit In Its IPO That Its Business Is Likely Unsustainable Due To Crazy Licensing Rates
Re: Re: Re: "The issue isn't so much Pandora..."
So what part of that ISN'T saying "the rates are too high for your business model"?
Now, you could argue that Pandora should adjust thier business model to fit with the fee schedule and just poo to them if they can't find a way to make it work. But if the fans want such a service, and you're in the way of it... how are you helping the creative innovation wanted by your customers?
Next >>