Oh, that's nothing. My mum used to get concerned about me playing chess on my PC because it's a computer game, and "everyone knows how violent computer games make you".
the cost of making a film in the studio model starts at $5 million, and ranges right up to $200 million for epics like Skyfall, Man of Steel and Avatar to name a few. Cool! Let the fuckers cost themselves out of the market while I continue to watch indies.
Choo talkin' 'bout, Willis? Everyone knows that broadband itself is unlimited, and if what you say about LTE radios is true, then that is a physical limitation, not a limitation of the bandwidth. In fact, according to this Wikipedia article, broadband is unlimited because it isn't just what we use modems to access, but also includes dial-up Internet, landlines, analogue TV, and more. Did you even try to do your research before coming out with that crap?
So when the USPTO says they're removing the registration because the term is disparaging and they don't want to grant rights for the team to seek trademark damages to that kind of language in all of our names, I happen to think that make sense. Actually, it makes no sense at all. Now, if we were talking about changing the logo to a football (which has a reddish brown 'skin'), then that would make sense, but changing a decades old name because a vocal minority got butthurt? I don't think so.
Let me make John Legere's argument for him before someone else thinks of it: "Just as Tom Wheeler is not a dingo, I am not an arsonist. And before John Oliver chimes in, the proof is in the fact that I have never been charged with such crimes."
Um, I'm sorry, but are you smoking something, Kenichi? The website claimed that having "dirt" in its website name protected itself from lawsuits, which is not what section 230 says. The website claimed nothing of the sort, it was the district court that erroneously concluded that simply having the word 'dirt' in the name of a website took away its Section 230 immunity. For instance, if someone posts dafamatory messages on Techdirt and Techdirt refuses to remove those messages, then Techdirt can be held liable for the messages posted by its users. To correct your statement above: For instance, if someone posts dafamatory messages on Techdirt and Techdirt refuses to remove those messages, then Techdirt cannot be held liable for the messages posted by its users unless it can be proven to have materially contributed to the defamatory statements. As has been said before, no site can be legitimately sued for merely deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.
Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC, Dragonworld ETC. Go ahead, waste attorneys fees in attempting to sue me over something that's too short to have a copyright on it.
This is so stupid. Now, I can totally see this firm having a legit problem with another company calling itself Emergency Essentials and selling the same kind of stuff, but there's absolutely no need to go after sites for selling the same type of stuff under the heading of 'emergency essentials'. That's not the same thing at all, and is not trademark infringement in any way that I can see.
The copy doesn't have be both transient and incidental, just one or the other, so b would certainly apply. As for d, exactly what economic gains do people seek to make when they wish to make their games easier to play?
Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user�s computer screen and the copies in the internet �cache� of that computer�s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders. Well, duh. How do you think I've been reading 1984 and Animal Farm for free ever since I first gained an online presence? Article 5 of the Copyright Directive and Public Domain copies of the works hosted on Australian servers!
I suppose NC must be doing something really, really bad if it wants all this legisation to protect their secrets. After all, aren't ordinary Netizens accused of being criminals if all they want is mere online privacy?
My mum couldn't have told me about me lying in my Silver Cross pram, batting at the blue and yellow duck rattles strung across the hood of it, because she was cooking in the kitchen while I was in the back garden, the pram facing away from the house. As I have stated, I can remember back to when I was around nine-months-old; not because of synthetic memories, but because I'm Autistic.
The Peng! Collective site wasn't such an obvious parody. Yes, they 'offered' products that even the real Google wouldn't offer, but they did it in a way that looked genuine, and the 100% official looking Google links at the bottom of the home page along with the lack of any disclaimer meant that Google had to sue or lose its trademarks. In this case, unfortunately, Google Inc. were in the right, tw#ts that they are otherwise.
The US is about to file criminal charges against Russia for their censorship of free speech, and are contemplating filing criminal charges against themselves for auto-rape.
On the post: That Time When People Thought Playing Chess Would Make You Violent
On the post: Australian Media Company CEO Accuses iiNet ISP Of Piracy 'Lies', Says Illegal Filesharing Is Theft
Really?
Cool! Let the fuckers cost themselves out of the market while I continue to watch indies.
On the post: Music Freedom Or Holding Consumers Hostage? Letting ISPs Pick Winners And Losers Is A Problem
Re:
On the post: USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins
Actually, it makes no sense at all. Now, if we were talking about changing the logo to a football (which has a reddish brown 'skin'), then that would make sense, but changing a decades old name because a vocal minority got butthurt? I don't think so.
On the post: Music Freedom Or Holding Consumers Hostage? Letting ISPs Pick Winners And Losers Is A Problem
On the post: Phew: Appeals Court Says Having 'Dirt' In Your Domain Name Doesn't Remove Safe Harbor Protections
Re:
The website claimed that having "dirt" in its website name protected itself from lawsuits, which is not what section 230 says.
The website claimed nothing of the sort, it was the district court that erroneously concluded that simply having the word 'dirt' in the name of a website took away its Section 230 immunity.
For instance, if someone posts dafamatory messages on Techdirt and Techdirt refuses to remove those messages, then Techdirt can be held liable for the messages posted by its users.
To correct your statement above: For instance, if someone posts dafamatory messages on Techdirt and Techdirt refuses to remove those messages, then Techdirt cannot be held liable for the messages posted by its users unless it can be proven to have materially contributed to the defamatory statements.
As has been said before, no site can be legitimately sued for merely deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.
On the post: Phew: Appeals Court Says Having 'Dirt' In Your Domain Name Doesn't Remove Safe Harbor Protections
On the post: Tom Wheeler: 'I'm Not A Dingo.' John Oliver: 'Prove It!'
On the post: Judge Reminds Vexatious Human Being That Ideas -- Even Techno-Dragons With Guns -- Are Not Protected By Copyright
I invite you to sue my ass, Mr. Eng
Go ahead, waste attorneys fees in attempting to sue me over something that's too short to have a copyright on it.
On the post: Disaster Preparedness Company Thinks People Shouldn't Be Allowed To Use The Words 'Emergency Essentials'
On the post: Lancaster, California Rolls Out Law Enforcement Surveillance Tech The Right Way -- By Involving The Public
Re: Re: Is that so?
On the post: How Chinese Censorship Tries To Disappear References To Tiananmen Square
On the post: EU Court Of Justice: Just Viewing Stuff Online Isn't Infringing On Copyright
Re:
On the post: EU Court Of Justice: Just Viewing Stuff Online Isn't Infringing On Copyright
Well, duh. How do you think I've been reading 1984 and Animal Farm for free ever since I first gained an online presence? Article 5 of the Copyright Directive and Public Domain copies of the works hosted on Australian servers!
On the post: John Oliver: Stop Calling It Net Neutrality; It's 'Preventing Cable Company F**kery'
Re: Cable company fuckery
On the post: Should Revealing Fracking's Chemicals Be A Crime?
On the post: DailyDirt: Growing Brains
Re: Re: The facts
On the post: Google Trademark Bullies Obviously Non-Commercial Parody Site
I hate to defend Google, but...
On the post: Expensive TSA Nudie Scanners Find A New Home: Prisons
How does one make the Federal Government look stupid...
On the post: Irony Alert: US Filing Criminal Charges Against China For Cyberspying
In other ironic news...
Next >>