I don't know of any law suits, but 20th Century Fox once banned Siskel & Ebert from advanced screenings because they gave a bad review to "Nuns on the Run". For those too young to remember, yes, the movie really did suck.
I don't think anyone is saying the chiropractic treatments don't have any benefit * The problem is that CPA members were claiming to be able to treat everything from bet-wetting to cancer; claims that have absolutely no backing.
(* However, as long as were treating anecdotal stories as evidence, when I got chiropractic treatments for my back pain it worked for about a week (and then I needed a new treatment). After a few years of that costly cycle, I tried massage therapy. The massage treated the immediate pain, but I was also taught how do specific exercises to strengthen the muscles that caused my back pain. I haven't needed a treatment of any kind for over a year.)
As people have said again and again here, the Law itself requires the Holders to aggressively pursue infringements in court to protect their Copyrights.
You may have a point if you're talking about Trademarks rather than Copyrights. Trademark holders are required to protect their marks from any use that would genericize it (for example, using the term "Band-Aid" to refer to any brand of bandage other than Johnson & Johnson's), otherwise they risk losing the exclusive right to that mark.
Copyright holders are under no such requirement. They may selectively sue some infringing uses and ignore or even encourage others (i.e. fan-fiction) without any risk of losing their copyright.
Re: Global warming is a hoax. Oops, I mean violent video games don't lead to violence.
Given that, would it not make sense to err on the side of rational behavior and not submit people to this until you knew for sure or were reasonably sure?
You could say that about ANYTHING. We don't know for sure if eating carrots contributes to violent behavior. We don't know for sure if wearing hats contributes to violent behavior. We don't know for sure if posting self-righteous diatribes contributes to violent behavior (although I have my own theory on that one). The bottom line is, if you wait for everything to be proven 100% safe before doing it, you may as well just kill yourself, since you won't be doing anything.
At my local library, you have to enter you library card number to use the free WiFi connection (potentially allowing them to trace any infringing activity back to you).
They imply infringement on copyrights, trademarks and (unissued) patents -- as well as publicity rights and trade dress. It's like the grand slam of what's included in intellectual property law.
That is impressive, but to a complete IP grand slam, it would also need to include trade secrets.
BTW, wasn't Peter Shankman a character in Ghostbusters?
This is basically the same protect the media has. If a newspaper says "President Obama is having an affair" (and it's not true) then defamation (or rather libel) has taken place. But if they say "Highly-placed sources say President Obama is having an affair", they're more-or-less off the hook.
The EULA does not say the calls aren't private, it says "Our computers may analyze the phone numbers you call in order to improve the relevance of the ads". Of course the company routing your telephone calls knows what numbers you're calling (that's how they bill you). The same is true for Vonage or Skype or even a regular, old-fashioned telephone company. The difference is that MagicJack uses that calling information to target ads at you (like Google does with searches or gMail). Yes it's somewhat creepy, but it's not a criminal privacy issue.
Currently, nearly all the value of the ebook format comes from the device, not the publisher.
Worse than that, many publishers demand that the device remove value they could be adding (like disabling Kindle's voice reader feature, fearing it will cut into audiobook sales).
Apps are to Smartphones what Ringtones were to regular phones a few years ago. Does anyone still care about Ringtones? The window to monetize a fad is perilously short.
But iTunes was competing with free downloads back in the $0.99 days also. Even in businesses selling physical goods that are not competing with free downloads, raising your prices 30% during a global recession is stupidly bad idea and will definitely effect sales. Yes there are some people that will never pay for music no matter what the price, but why would you reduce the number that are willing to pay by squeezing them tighter?
A bad movie is always bad, all the experience in the world can't make an Ishtar or a Waterworld be anything other than horrible movies.
I guess you've never been to a midnight showing of Plan 9 From Outer Space or Rocky Horror Picture Show. The shared experience of watching a bad movie with a bunch of other people while making snide comments and throwing popcorn at the screen can actually make an entertaining experience (even though the movie is still bad).
And yes, before we go through this again, we understand the arguments why courts do this (so no need to keep repeating it in the comments like last time). The question is does this really make sense?
Yes it does. Let's say you're on trial for burglary. As a kid, you were arrested for shoplifting (but not convicted, a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time). If the prosecution brings up your prior arrest to make some point about you being a lifelong thief, the judge will tell the jury to disregard it and may even demand a retrial, since the awareness of your previous arrest may prejudice the jury (even though it is completely unrelated to the current trial). Do you really want the jury to be able to use the internet to do their own research and discover who knows what (both true and false) about you rather than deciding based only on the facts as presented at the trial?
Like what if someone implies that x technology = 100% illegal activity, and a simple wiki search would prove that it's not?
Riiiight, because Wikipedia is never wrong. If I've ever on trial, I'll be sure to make lots of edits to Wikipedia that prove my innocence just before the jury starts deliberating.
Publishing technical journals as does the IEEE is a very costly enterprise, and they don't take advertising to help defray these costs.
I'm not sure why it should be so costly, since the IEEE doesn't actually create the content, their members do (and pay for the privilege of doing so). If they get rid of dead tree journals and go electronic only (assuming they haven't already), then their publishing costs should be minimal.
You don't need a license if you're driving only on private property, you only need a license if you wish to use government-funded public roads. Therefore, if the government plans to fund the entire internet (including the "last mile" to my house), then I'll gladly apply for an internet license. If I have to pay for the internet, then the government can piss off.
The proper netiquette for when you are mistakenly receiving traffic for another site it to put a statement on your page something like "The is Failbook.com, if you were looking for Failbooking.com please click " with a link to the other site, NOT to embed the entire site in a frame with little or no indication that you are not at the correct site. Trying to sell the site that way is certainly deceitful. Even if such embedding wouldn't normally be trademark/copyright infringement, I would hope the judge would take Failbook's motives into account (which certainly seem fraudulent to me).
On the post: Horror Blogger Threatened With Defamation And Copyright Lawsuits After Writing An Open Letter To Horror Magazine
Re: I can Hardly wait
On the post: This Is What A Patent Thicket Looks Like [Updated]
Re: Cisco and Palm
On the post: How UK Chiropractors' Attempt To Silence One Critic Created The Backlash That May Change Chiropractics In The UK
Re: Re:
(* However, as long as were treating anecdotal stories as evidence, when I got chiropractic treatments for my back pain it worked for about a week (and then I needed a new treatment). After a few years of that costly cycle, I tried massage therapy. The massage treated the immediate pain, but I was also taught how do specific exercises to strengthen the muscles that caused my back pain. I haven't needed a treatment of any kind for over a year.)
On the post: Louis Vuitton Sues Hyundai Over A Louis Vuitton Basketball
Re: Hate Me Today
You may have a point if you're talking about Trademarks rather than Copyrights. Trademark holders are required to protect their marks from any use that would genericize it (for example, using the term "Band-Aid" to refer to any brand of bandage other than Johnson & Johnson's), otherwise they risk losing the exclusive right to that mark.
Copyright holders are under no such requirement. They may selectively sue some infringing uses and ignore or even encourage others (i.e. fan-fiction) without any risk of losing their copyright.
On the post: Louis Vuitton Sues Hyundai Over A Louis Vuitton Basketball
Re: The puntacular punny punster:
On the post: Long Time Video Game Critic Claims Conclusive Evidence That Violent Video Games Cause Aggression; Conclusive Except That It Isn't...
Re: Global warming is a hoax. Oops, I mean violent video games don't lead to violence.
You could say that about ANYTHING. We don't know for sure if eating carrots contributes to violent behavior. We don't know for sure if wearing hats contributes to violent behavior. We don't know for sure if posting self-righteous diatribes contributes to violent behavior (although I have my own theory on that one). The bottom line is, if you wait for everything to be proven 100% safe before doing it, you may as well just kill yourself, since you won't be doing anything.
On the post: Open WiFi To Become A Liability In The UK Under Digital Economy Bill
Free but not Open WiFi
On the post: Can Anyone Help HelpAReporterOut Understand That Competition Is Perfectly Legal
Grand Slam
That is impressive, but to a complete IP grand slam, it would also need to include trade secrets.
BTW, wasn't Peter Shankman a character in Ghostbusters?
On the post: Forwarding A Defamatory Email Is Not Defamation
Media protection
On the post: MagicJack Tries To Silence Boing Boing; Loses And Has To Pay $50,000
Re:
On the post: Book Publishers Circulating 'Talking Points' To Counter Arguments That Ebook Prices Need To Go Lower
Re:
Worse than that, many publishers demand that the device remove value they could be adding (like disabling Kindle's voice reader feature, fearing it will cut into audiobook sales).
On the post: Five Reasons Not To Get Swept Up In App Madness
Apps are the new Ringtones
On the post: Duh: Raise Music Prices To $1.29/Song; Music Sales Growth Slows
Re:
On the post: Understanding What's Scarce And What's Not...
Re: Re: Re:
I guess you've never been to a midnight showing of Plan 9 From Outer Space or Rocky Horror Picture Show. The shared experience of watching a bad movie with a bunch of other people while making snide comments and throwing popcorn at the screen can actually make an entertaining experience (even though the movie is still bad).
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Yes it makes sense.
Yes it does. Let's say you're on trial for burglary. As a kid, you were arrested for shoplifting (but not convicted, a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time). If the prosecution brings up your prior arrest to make some point about you being a lifelong thief, the judge will tell the jury to disregard it and may even demand a retrial, since the awareness of your previous arrest may prejudice the jury (even though it is completely unrelated to the current trial). Do you really want the jury to be able to use the internet to do their own research and discover who knows what (both true and false) about you rather than deciding based only on the facts as presented at the trial?
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: yeah, my thoughts too
Riiiight, because Wikipedia is never wrong. If I've ever on trial, I'll be sure to make lots of edits to Wikipedia that prove my innocence just before the jury starts deliberating.
On the post: Why Does The IEEE Make It So Difficult To Access And Share Research?
Re: IEEE Membership
I'm not sure why it should be so costly, since the IEEE doesn't actually create the content, their members do (and pay for the privilege of doing so). If they get rid of dead tree journals and go electronic only (assuming they haven't already), then their publishing costs should be minimal.
On the post: Microsoft Exec Calls For 'Driver's License For The Internet'
License to Drive
On the post: Writers Of 'Back Pockets On The Floor' Claim 'Pants On The Ground' Ripped Them Off...
Re: oops
On the post: ICanHasLawsuit? Pet Holdings Sues Other Site For Framing Failbooking With Better Domain Name
Netiquette
Next >>