Again you miss the point. Sure, the people who debunk industry numbers naturally agree more with Mike. But Mike is able to make a credibility judgment. I am sure that Mike has enough integrity to point out when Big Media has produced a good study with a valid method. Plus we can make credibility judgments for ourselves. If your so hot and bothered, why don't you present your own analysis of the issue?
Your point is inane. People are able to make credibility judgments. We should be skeptical of self-serving industry data. When an industry goes to Congress and presents numbers in order to benefit themselves, the default judgment should be that they are lying unless they are back their claims up rigorously with good data and proper methods (which Big Media never does).
75% of the songs on albums are crap. AC/DC wants people to pay for the 75% of the crap to get the 25% they like. Someone should tell them that people have already worked around that little problem.
I agree. You give a blackmailer a little money and they will always be back for more. If everyone refused, the risks for a patent troll would increase and the rate of return would decrease. Right now, there is not a lot of negative incentive for a troll.
They threaten... a lot of people license for a lawsuit is filed.
They file suit... a lot of people will settle before it goes to the jury.
No settlement... if it looks bad for the patent troll, they drop the suit and look for the next target.
Like the article said, the two stores are not in the same market. Obsolete's fixture have something Restoration's will never have: age and authenticity. Someone who will buy Restoration's fixture will not buy Obsolete's and visa versa.
In addition, there seems to be no affirmative deception. I am wary of cases for failing to tell someone something. I believe that everyone should have to work to get any sort of legal protection in this realm. If you don't want to sell to a certain type of people, you should have an affirmative duty to ask if they are of that class and reasonably investigate your customers. If you are not willing to do that, then it obviously isn't worth much to you and you should not be protected.
Commerce Clause. If you participate within interstate commerce, Congress can regulate you. That is what the Supreme Court has said for about 70 years now (though there has been a tad bit of push back in the last few years). What is interstate commerce is very broad.
The transactional costs come from having to determine who is famous enough, how to contact them, wait for permission and them pay them. Above an beyond that, you must figure out when you need permission to mention a "famous" person's name and deal with all the uncertainty.
I don't see how your proposed title would solve the problem. I don't see why the title is even the problem. It doesn't mention the player specifically. I am not even sure how his fame is being exploited for non-speech purposes. She is just telling her story which requires her and the show promoting her story to tell who she actually slept with.
The whole exploit fame argument is circular anyway. There is no market because no one is paying. No one will be paying because there isn't a market. Now, if his face was being put on a box of wheaties there there was an implied endorsement, I think that is a very different matter entirely. Maybe a likeliness of confusion inquiry is required.
This would put an incredible transaction cost burden on the public. Plus, just because something is commercial does not mean that it loses its first amendment right.
Does the show have more value because they got a woman who slept with him? Probably. Is it hurting him economically or reduce the ability to exploit is own fame? No. Does she have the right to talk about her relationship with him in any forum she wishes? Absolutely.
GAAAAAA~! That is not what I was talking about. Christopher state that he would be flattered if someone release a sex video of him. I was just throwing down THAT challenge.
Same here. Or... I could just yack it up really loudly when the El is crowded. Maybe that is what these stupid alderman want. These alderman are incredibly ludditish. Mine does not even have an email contact.
A linux install probably wouldn't have the drivers for the hardware, unless it is totally isolated form the operating system. You'd have to be pretty dedicated at spying on your customers to do that.
The real thing ECPA and CFAA are meant to do is to help big business prevent people from doing things they don't like. The only question is: Is Arron's a big business? If so, then they get a free pass. Also, if they are a big business, they probably have a cause of action against the couple for revealing the existence of the software/hardware.
The answer could be to create a private cause of action that allows a former employee to sue in instances of retaliation and retaliation. The employer doesn't have to keep someone one the job, but if they are discriminatory, retaliatory, or arbitrary (in the legal sense), they will have to pay for that action.
I think that National Instruments may be the masters of terrible updates and licenses. When I was working as an engineer, my coworkers and I would curse the name of National Instruments on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
On the post: New Zealand Libraries Considering Shutting Off Public Internet Access To Avoid Three Strikes Law
Re: "held hearings" = "Lobbying"
On the post: New Zealand Libraries Considering Shutting Off Public Internet Access To Avoid Three Strikes Law
Re: How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.
On the post: AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available For Download; Rest Of Internet Laughs
On the post: Why Red Hat Is Wrong That It's Better To Just Pay Patent Trolls Sometimes
Re: Kidnapping
They threaten... a lot of people license for a lawsuit is filed.
They file suit... a lot of people will settle before it goes to the jury.
No settlement... if it looks bad for the patent troll, they drop the suit and look for the next target.
On the post: Antique Shop Takes Ownership Culture To New Level, Sues Over Lamps It Doesn't Own
In addition, there seems to be no affirmative deception. I am wary of cases for failing to tell someone something. I believe that everyone should have to work to get any sort of legal protection in this realm. If you don't want to sell to a certain type of people, you should have an affirmative duty to ask if they are of that class and reasonably investigate your customers. If you are not willing to do that, then it obviously isn't worth much to you and you should not be protected.
On the post: Labor Board Continues To Warn Companies Not To Fire People Based On Tweets
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Laptop Rental Provider Sued For Spying On Renters Via Surreptitious Webcam Software
Re: Fourth Amendment Violation
On the post: Chicago Politicians Say Mobile Phones Should Block Kids From Texting While Driving
Re:
On the post: Chris Bosh Claims Basketball Wives TV Show Infringes On His 'Life Rights'
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
I don't see how your proposed title would solve the problem. I don't see why the title is even the problem. It doesn't mention the player specifically. I am not even sure how his fame is being exploited for non-speech purposes. She is just telling her story which requires her and the show promoting her story to tell who she actually slept with.
The whole exploit fame argument is circular anyway. There is no market because no one is paying. No one will be paying because there isn't a market. Now, if his face was being put on a box of wheaties there there was an implied endorsement, I think that is a very different matter entirely. Maybe a likeliness of confusion inquiry is required.
On the post: Chris Bosh Claims Basketball Wives TV Show Infringes On His 'Life Rights'
Re: Actually...
Does the show have more value because they got a woman who slept with him? Probably. Is it hurting him economically or reduce the ability to exploit is own fame? No. Does she have the right to talk about her relationship with him in any forum she wishes? Absolutely.
On the post: Australian Anti-Trolling Law Put To The Test After Guy Broadcasts Having Sex Via Skype
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.
On the post: Chicago Politicians Say Mobile Phones Should Block Kids From Texting While Driving
Re:
On the post: Laptop Rental Provider Sued For Spying On Renters Via Surreptitious Webcam Software
Re: Re: Re: Rent to pwn
On the post: Laptop Rental Provider Sued For Spying On Renters Via Surreptitious Webcam Software
Re: aaron's
On the post: Laptop Rental Provider Sued For Spying On Renters Via Surreptitious Webcam Software
On the post: Australian Anti-Trolling Law Put To The Test After Guy Broadcasts Having Sex Via Skype
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.
On the post: Labor Board Continues To Warn Companies Not To Fire People Based On Tweets
Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Studios Got Canadian Police To Arrest Movie Cammers As A Personal Favor
Re: Re: Overcriminalization
On the post: Oddest Copyright Lawsuit Ever: Oprah Sued For... Um... You Have To Read It Yourself
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Privacy Issues
On the post: How Adobe Drives Infringement Of Its Products Through Incompatibility
Next >>