Perhaps the judge ordered this to set a precedent. One that will be a shining example to anyone else that thinks about suing Google for linking to them.
When I go to Verizon.com I see the options for
Wireless> Residential> Business
The paperwork may show them as "different" companies, but they use the same logo and share the same website. For whatever legal conveniences calling them "separate" provides, they certainly don't attempt to make that apparent in the public eye.
If Verizon Landline is different from Verizon Wireless, get a different logo and get a different website and stop acting like one company.
Nothing in that code, but something in the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So in the new agreements, does Righthaven have full ownership of the copyrights now with no legal agreements requiring it to return the copyrights once it has sued?
The monkey used the photographer's camera without his knowledge or consent. Basically, he found a camera and took some pictures with it.
Suppose I am walking along the beach and I see a camera on a towel. I pick it up and snap some photos, one of which is this amazing shot of a shark leaping into the air and catching a pelican in its teeth. It's a great shot.
Since the camera belonged to some guy who was swimming (and silly enough to leave the equipment unguarded) does he get the copyright on a work that he did not do? If so, could to reference the law where that is stated?
By your logic, you could surmise that the store where he bought the camera as well as the manufacturers and distributors of the camera could all claim equal copyright. After all, without them, the man would not have had the camera in the first place.
"the law is the law" so we should just accept it as being absolutely the best thing? Too bad you weren't around earlier. That way women could still be denied the right to vote in the U.S.
But I'm still confused how all the art throughout history managed to get made before the recent IP laws.
There are bad laws. There used to be laws making it a crime for a black man to cross a state line with a white woman in the car and they certainly couldn't get married. People went to jail because of it. Saying that something is right because it is law is just plain flawed.
The debate over the effects of IP is not only valid but necessary. If disputes about the value and validity of new laws are to be summarily dismissed, you will eventually find that rights you once had are taken from you and you will not be permitted to say anything about it.
If they block features that by default come with the hardware that you purchase, then alter the programming on the hardware to support their business model AND go to Google and get them to remove existing apps that would work around their new fence, I think that's more than "flipping a switch".
Or better let charge them HUGE fees for such large assemblies. Big enough to cover the losses of all the vendors in town, that way they can reimburse them for their losses. They may have trademarked the name, but they don't own the town.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted
"Hiding" my data through encryption does not make me guilty of anything. I encrypt my data because it's nobody else's business what I do.
Do you publish your bank statements online for everyone to read. Do you hand over your medical records to be inspected by anybody who wants to see them?
Privacy isn't about "not having anything to hide". It's about "my personal business is my own". Encrypt everything. Even the things that aren't important to you or else your privacy is just another commodity to be sold.
Then from what I understand, the guy who filed the response claiming incompetence must include himself on this list, since he signed off on many of these. Sounds like massive incompetence and certainly grounds to get everything tossed.
If you send me something you don't want me to be able to share, what will prevent me from simply taking a screenshot of it? There has to be something on it that tells ME that it is from YOU otherwise it would just be considered a spam from some Anonymous Coward.
As others have said, there is NOTHING that can prevent someone sharing information given to them by another person.
Maybe I am just expecting too much from lawyers, but if I am acting as counsel for a specific court, I would expect that I certainly DO need to be aware of all laws and rules affecting my filings. Is it seriously that difficult? Are these local rules hidden and not publicly available?
You may not have to know ALL laws and rules, but it's not beyond expectation for you to know the laws and rules pertaining to whatever you are working on.
Honestly, when did "I didn't know" become an acceptable defense for a lawyer?
Sure they can hire some no name, no skill puppeteer, just like a director can hire some no name actor. But what digital puppets will people flock to see? The one with the famous puppeteer. And the famous puppeteer will cost more than the ones with less skill.
It doesn't matter what you put in front of the screen. There will be some human element behind it some of those will be more skilled than others and become more known.
Digital actors are just extensions of the humans that control them. People will be fans of the puppeteers, not the puppets.
So if I take a picture of a man sitting down, playing a guitar in front of a building, I should be able to have the courts uphold my copyright claims against every other depiction of a man sitting down playing a guitar?
It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Honestly, I think these guys should win just to see the thousands of other artists start suing the crap out of each other as they start claiming they own the copyrights to concepts, arrangements and styles.
Then, the first guy can sue all those who sued by claiming that he owns the copyright of the expression of an artist suing another artist over the copyright of an artistic expression.
This is an obsolete definition. Meanings change. In fact many of the words we use today mean something entirely different than what they did at some point in the past.
Remember when gay meant happy? But if you call some smiling on the street "gay" today you might get a different reaction than you would have 50 years ago. Very few people will think you are saying the man is happy, since that definition is obsolete.
According to your link, a hacker was originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe. If you can accept that the definition changed once, it should not be difficult to accept it has changed again.
Dictionary.com says this about hacker "slang for a computer fanatic, esp one who through a personal computer breaks into the computer system of a company, government, etc"
Wikipedia says: Hack (computer security) v., Originally derived from verb HACK, "To cut into repeatedly and/or irregularly," for usage as a Slang Term or Jargon for the act of breaking into (hacking into) computers and computer networks which has been adopted as a common term in Computer Science
If I go to any website and look for something to let me run a program without a CD (thus bypassing the protections) I would have to search for the NOCD Crack.
At one time, in the very limited programmer subculture, participants in that group referred to themselves as "hackers" without the connotation of illicit activities. But that is by far not the most common use.
I am reminded of the movie "Being John Malkovich". The puppets are what people watched, but the puppeteer was the famous one and was the one who got paid, quite well.
If actors are replaced by digital puppets, people will still recognize the skill behind them as it becomes apparent that some digital "actors" perform better than others.
On the post: Newspapers Win Suit Against Google, Get Their Wish To Be Delisted, Then Complain
On the post: Verizon Tells Customer To Get A Lawyer & A Subpoena To Get An Itemized Bill
Re:
Wireless> Residential> Business
The paperwork may show them as "different" companies, but they use the same logo and share the same website. For whatever legal conveniences calling them "separate" provides, they certainly don't attempt to make that apparent in the public eye.
If Verizon Landline is different from Verizon Wireless, get a different logo and get a different website and stop acting like one company.
On the post: TSA Agents Continue To Lie And Say You Can't Photograph Or Videotape Checkpoints
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell that to the USSR and oh, every other government that was toppled by revolution.
On the post: TSA Agents Continue To Lie And Say You Can't Photograph Or Videotape Checkpoints
Re: Re: Right to air travel
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That should cover "no strip search".
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: "almost certainly"
Suppose I am walking along the beach and I see a camera on a towel. I pick it up and snap some photos, one of which is this amazing shot of a shark leaping into the air and catching a pelican in its teeth. It's a great shot.
Since the camera belonged to some guy who was swimming (and silly enough to leave the equipment unguarded) does he get the copyright on a work that he did not do? If so, could to reference the law where that is stated?
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re:
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I'm still confused how all the art throughout history managed to get made before the recent IP laws.
There are bad laws. There used to be laws making it a crime for a black man to cross a state line with a white woman in the car and they certainly couldn't get married. People went to jail because of it. Saying that something is right because it is law is just plain flawed.
The debate over the effects of IP is not only valid but necessary. If disputes about the value and validity of new laws are to be summarily dismissed, you will eventually find that rights you once had are taken from you and you will not be permitted to say anything about it.
On the post: You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought: Verizon Breaks Phones; Turns Off Feature
Re:
On the post: Company Trademarks Name Of Town, Sues Firm For Selling Souvenirs
Re:
On the post: ISP's Five Strikes Plan: Railroading, MPAA/RIAA-Style
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted
Do you publish your bank statements online for everyone to read. Do you hand over your medical records to be inspected by anybody who wants to see them?
Privacy isn't about "not having anything to hide". It's about "my personal business is my own". Encrypt everything. Even the things that aren't important to you or else your privacy is just another commodity to be sold.
On the post: Righthaven: Blame Our Clueless Lawyer, But Don't Sanction Us, For Failing To Name Stephens Media As An Interested Party
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Totally Bogus Privacy Issue Over Google+ Raised
Re: Re: One limited sense
As others have said, there is NOTHING that can prevent someone sharing information given to them by another person.
On the post: Righthaven: Blame Our Clueless Lawyer, But Don't Sanction Us, For Failing To Name Stephens Media As An Interested Party
Re: Re: Re:
You may not have to know ALL laws and rules, but it's not beyond expectation for you to know the laws and rules pertaining to whatever you are working on.
Honestly, when did "I didn't know" become an acceptable defense for a lawyer?
On the post: Leaping The Uncanny Valley: Japanese Pop Star Turns Out To Be A Computer Generated Mashup
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: movie "S1mone"
It doesn't matter what you put in front of the screen. There will be some human element behind it some of those will be more skilled than others and become more known.
Digital actors are just extensions of the humans that control them. People will be fans of the puppeteers, not the puppets.
On the post: Rihanna Sued By Yet Another Photographer Who Doesn't Understand That An Homage Is Not A Copy
Re: Re: Scope of copyright protection
It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Honestly, I think these guys should win just to see the thousands of other artists start suing the crap out of each other as they start claiming they own the copyrights to concepts, arrangements and styles.
Then, the first guy can sue all those who sued by claiming that he owns the copyright of the expression of an artist suing another artist over the copyright of an artistic expression.
On the post: Apparently 'Hacked Sony PS3 & Got Sued For It' Looks Good On The Resume
Re: Hacker
Remember when gay meant happy? But if you call some smiling on the street "gay" today you might get a different reaction than you would have 50 years ago. Very few people will think you are saying the man is happy, since that definition is obsolete.
According to your link, a hacker was originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe. If you can accept that the definition changed once, it should not be difficult to accept it has changed again.
On the post: Apparently 'Hacked Sony PS3 & Got Sued For It' Looks Good On The Resume
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia says: Hack (computer security) v., Originally derived from verb HACK, "To cut into repeatedly and/or irregularly," for usage as a Slang Term or Jargon for the act of breaking into (hacking into) computers and computer networks which has been adopted as a common term in Computer Science
If I go to any website and look for something to let me run a program without a CD (thus bypassing the protections) I would have to search for the NOCD Crack.
At one time, in the very limited programmer subculture, participants in that group referred to themselves as "hackers" without the connotation of illicit activities. But that is by far not the most common use.
On the post: Leaping The Uncanny Valley: Japanese Pop Star Turns Out To Be A Computer Generated Mashup
Re: Re: Re: Re: movie "S1mone"
I am reminded of the movie "Being John Malkovich". The puppets are what people watched, but the puppeteer was the famous one and was the one who got paid, quite well.
If actors are replaced by digital puppets, people will still recognize the skill behind them as it becomes apparent that some digital "actors" perform better than others.
Next >>