Yup, link number one is me w/the puppy I'm constantly talking about (although she's nearly full grown now). I have to say, if given the choice, I'd probably prefer to look like link 2....
....can you offer one, just one example of where anyone on Techdirt has said that offering hardcover books and charging for them is a poor business model?
The levels to which OTB can demean another person for what they choose to do in life are astounding. I've yet to meet someone so filled with disdain for a vast majority of people. It's actually quite sad....
So you don't have a problem with the conclusion, you just don't like the specific words I used or that I left some of the heavy-lifting to the article I linked to.
Seriously, just cite someone for this case, since they're all different (and apparently caselaw has disappeared from the annals of history), that agrees w/you and I'll retract everything I said above and we can have a wonderful discussion about the case. Just....one....3rd party expert....on this case....as the article I linked to does....
"Dilution or false endorsement would be the claims."
And they would be summarily dismissed, or did you not read the quotes from experts in the linked article? Along with the case history they cited?
"IP genius Timmy G is not one for issue-spotting or analysis."
Uh huh. That must be why the experts cited agree with me. Which experts are agreeing w/you on this one exactly?
"He thinks the opinion of "a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project" is reliable."
Certainly more reliable than "a resident fellow at dont-exist school. You still haven't cited anyone?
"That's like asking Pirate Mike if some copyright defendant has a viable fair use claim. You know the answer before asking."
We all appreciate you using capital letters for our titles, balls-stompingly incorrect though they may be.
"Great job writing an entire article about the legal issues with unauthorized product placement in a movie...."
The placement may be unauthorized, but it sure as shit isn't illegal because....
"....but without the bother and hassle of actually consulting the actual law."
...."Dougherty and Mark Partridge, a Chicago intellectual property lawyer, also noted that a court rejected an effort to get by Caterpillar Inc. to get its logo removed from tractors driven by the villains in 2003's "George of the Jungle 2." The company had argued its trademark was harmed by having its product associated with the film's villains." is a direct quote from the article I linked to, which also mentions another case, and which renders your entire post full of bullshit just that.
"You are prime TD material--dumb, opinionated, and uninformed."
From the mouth of babes. Stupid, ignorant, and apparently illiterate babes....
Congratulations. You're a dickhead. Laughing at die-hard fans of a wonderful story/legacy....you must be the worst kind of douche-nozzle. God forbid you have children, or who knows how you'd judge their interests, you cock sandwich....
"The chicken's egg can survive outside of its mother, and in fact can be brought through the entire gestation process in an incubator with no hen around anywhere. Can anyone deny that this is its own life?"
Of course I can. It's an egg. It's an unrealized life. It ain't a chicken until it walks around and clucks at me, chastising me for all those god damned mcnuggets I've eaten all my life. Until it does, it's just that thing that gets fried up next to the bacon....
Mason, you're playing games with words and pretending that the question is more simple than it is. For example:
"So, when a woman chooses to have sex, and ends up pregnant because of it, should she be allowed to kill the unborn baby in order to avoid the natural consequences of her actions?"
Your choice of the word "kill" makes a massive assumption that the baby is alive at all. This, of course, is what the entire debate is about. Nobody says that we should be able to kill a life. The question is whether or not it is a life. For another example:
"When a person chooses to take an action that can potentially have undesirable consequences, and then finds themselves faced with said consequences as a direct result of their choices, should they be allowed to kill another human being in order to avoid the natural consequences of their actions?"
I don't think these are your words, but, again, the term "human being" is snuck in as though that's a settled issue. It isn't, which, again, is what the debate is all about.
And I'll go you one further: your entire premise is bullshit. The debate is not about whether or not a woman can avoid the natural consequences of having sex. It's DEMONSTRABLY not about that, otherwise abortion wouldn't be the only example of that debate at hand. We'd also be having the debate about whether it should be legal for a woman to kill the herpes she got, or fight off AIDS, etc. All of those are natural results of having sex, but we're not arguing about them. Why? Because that isn't the debate.
The debate is undeniably religious. It's about the sanctity of life and what the definition of life is. While I won't take sides in this question for the purposes of this comment, as I see it there are only two VALID stances in this debate. Either abortion is ALWAYS wrong, including in cases of rape/incest, because life is life and that's the end of the question, or the question of life and personhood is unsettled and therefore we should not legislate in furtherance of an unanswered question.
I won't tell you which side of those two I'm on, but they're the ONLY RATIONAL sides to be on in the first place....
"There are, of course, real differences in many of the other policies from the two candidates"
No, not really. In the myopia of the American political system, there may appear to be differences, but on the world-sized scale these two are a few nearly imperceptible blips away from each other on just about everything. They're both from parties that embrace rampant spending (just on different stuff). Their differences on healthcare boil down to a single sub-issue (the mandate), and it's actually unclear where Romney actually stands there. Neither of them is for real tax reform in either direction, either from a massive tax uptick on the rich (a la the 1950's), or the institution of a progressive sales tax.
The fact of the matter is that the United States is largely a conservative nation. So much so, in fact, that our "liberals" are merely on the liberal end of conservatism. It's what makes the hyperbolic claims about Obama being a socialist so hilarious. He's every bit the socialist as 1970's Republicans, which is what he essentially is.
I don't say all this to argue that either conservative or liberal thought is better or worse than the other; the point I'm trying to make is that these two are, for all practical purposes, the same guy.
On the post: President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity
Presidential overreach....
On the post: Australian Court: Google Must Pay Guy $200k Due To Image Search Turning Up Gangsters
Re: I've google searched my name before, but never an image search
On the post: Australian Court: Google Must Pay Guy $200k Due To Image Search Turning Up Gangsters
Re:
On the post: Australian Court: Google Must Pay Guy $200k Due To Image Search Turning Up Gangsters
Re: Funny funny
On the post: Interview With Author Of 'Hacking The Future'; Techdirt Book Club
Re:
On the post: Budweiser Asks Paramount To Remove Their Beer From The Movie Flight
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star... Taken Down Because Of Music
Re: Re: "How is that a good solution?"
On the post: Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star... Taken Down Because Of Music
Re: Re: One small correction
On the post: Budweiser Asks Paramount To Remove Their Beer From The Movie Flight
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got it.
On the post: Budweiser Asks Paramount To Remove Their Beer From The Movie Flight
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Budweiser Asks Paramount To Remove Their Beer From The Movie Flight
Re: Re:
And they would be summarily dismissed, or did you not read the quotes from experts in the linked article? Along with the case history they cited?
"IP genius Timmy G is not one for issue-spotting or analysis."
Uh huh. That must be why the experts cited agree with me. Which experts are agreeing w/you on this one exactly?
"He thinks the opinion of "a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project" is reliable."
Certainly more reliable than "a resident fellow at dont-exist school. You still haven't cited anyone?
"That's like asking Pirate Mike if some copyright defendant has a viable fair use claim. You know the answer before asking."
We all appreciate you using capital letters for our titles, balls-stompingly incorrect though they may be.
"Great job writing an entire article about the legal issues with unauthorized product placement in a movie...."
The placement may be unauthorized, but it sure as shit isn't illegal because....
"....but without the bother and hassle of actually consulting the actual law."
...."Dougherty and Mark Partridge, a Chicago intellectual property lawyer, also noted that a court rejected an effort to get by Caterpillar Inc. to get its logo removed from tractors driven by the villains in 2003's "George of the Jungle 2." The company had argued its trademark was harmed by having its product associated with the film's villains." is a direct quote from the article I linked to, which also mentions another case, and which renders your entire post full of bullshit just that.
"You are prime TD material--dumb, opinionated, and uninformed."
From the mouth of babes. Stupid, ignorant, and apparently illiterate babes....
On the post: Budweiser Asks Paramount To Remove Their Beer From The Movie Flight
Re:
On the post: Pfizer Can't Keep Its Viagra Patent Up In Canada
Suggestion for additional line
On the post: Pfizer Can't Keep Its Viagra Patent Up In Canada
Kudos
On the post: Will Disney Block Star Wars Fan-Made Content?
Re:
On the post: Stop Saying It's Okay To Censor Because 'You Can't Yell Fire In A Crowded Theater'
Re: Confused
On the post: Why Do Both Major Parties Suck So Badly On Civil Liberties?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course I can. It's an egg. It's an unrealized life. It ain't a chicken until it walks around and clucks at me, chastising me for all those god damned mcnuggets I've eaten all my life. Until it does, it's just that thing that gets fried up next to the bacon....
On the post: Why Do Both Major Parties Suck So Badly On Civil Liberties?
Re: Re: Re:
"So, when a woman chooses to have sex, and ends up pregnant because of it, should she be allowed to kill the unborn baby in order to avoid the natural consequences of her actions?"
Your choice of the word "kill" makes a massive assumption that the baby is alive at all. This, of course, is what the entire debate is about. Nobody says that we should be able to kill a life. The question is whether or not it is a life. For another example:
"When a person chooses to take an action that can potentially have undesirable consequences, and then finds themselves faced with said consequences as a direct result of their choices, should they be allowed to kill another human being in order to avoid the natural consequences of their actions?"
I don't think these are your words, but, again, the term "human being" is snuck in as though that's a settled issue. It isn't, which, again, is what the debate is all about.
And I'll go you one further: your entire premise is bullshit. The debate is not about whether or not a woman can avoid the natural consequences of having sex. It's DEMONSTRABLY not about that, otherwise abortion wouldn't be the only example of that debate at hand. We'd also be having the debate about whether it should be legal for a woman to kill the herpes she got, or fight off AIDS, etc. All of those are natural results of having sex, but we're not arguing about them. Why? Because that isn't the debate.
The debate is undeniably religious. It's about the sanctity of life and what the definition of life is. While I won't take sides in this question for the purposes of this comment, as I see it there are only two VALID stances in this debate. Either abortion is ALWAYS wrong, including in cases of rape/incest, because life is life and that's the end of the question, or the question of life and personhood is unsettled and therefore we should not legislate in furtherance of an unanswered question.
I won't tell you which side of those two I'm on, but they're the ONLY RATIONAL sides to be on in the first place....
On the post: Why Do Both Major Parties Suck So Badly On Civil Liberties?
Disagree (am I fired?)
No, not really. In the myopia of the American political system, there may appear to be differences, but on the world-sized scale these two are a few nearly imperceptible blips away from each other on just about everything. They're both from parties that embrace rampant spending (just on different stuff). Their differences on healthcare boil down to a single sub-issue (the mandate), and it's actually unclear where Romney actually stands there. Neither of them is for real tax reform in either direction, either from a massive tax uptick on the rich (a la the 1950's), or the institution of a progressive sales tax.
The fact of the matter is that the United States is largely a conservative nation. So much so, in fact, that our "liberals" are merely on the liberal end of conservatism. It's what makes the hyperbolic claims about Obama being a socialist so hilarious. He's every bit the socialist as 1970's Republicans, which is what he essentially is.
I don't say all this to argue that either conservative or liberal thought is better or worse than the other; the point I'm trying to make is that these two are, for all practical purposes, the same guy.
Yay, democracy!
On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court
Re: It's clear Mike is against the copyright holder:
Next >>