The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax. Nay, I am ready to increase the tax, if it can be shown that by so doing I should proportionally increase the bounty. My complaint is, that my honorable and learned friend doubles, triples, quadruples, the tax, and makes scarcely any perceptible addition to the bounty.
I'm just guessing he wouldn't have been too fond of "life +" copyright terms. It is well known that artists and authors produce fewer new works after they die.
It's more likely that the feds prefer an easy case to a hard one. One fraud is easily proved: a quick search of CM/ECF shows that the document never was filed. The other requires work.
We need to see Exhibit O before passing judgment on the agreement. But even without it, paragraph 42 of the Complaint reads decisively against Tobin:
The Agreement further provides that "Tobin understands that Trinity has not promised the public exhibition of the Sculpture, and that Trinity may loan the Sculpture to third parties as Trinity deems appropriate."
If the Agreement contains an integration clause (no party relied on promises outside the agreement), he is going to have a hard time making his case.
As for the "mutilation" claim, it should be dismissed. Tobin doesn't allege any facts plausibly suggesting that the Church intentionally damaged the sculpture, much less did so with an intent to alter its artistic impression. The sculpture broke while being moved, something entirely permissible under the Agreement.
And not to excuse the Church's alleged duplicitous conduct, but the Complaint reads like sour grapes on Tobin's part: artist loses high-profile display in Lower Manhattan, files lawsuit complaining about the terms of an agreement he freely entered into. Keep us posted.
Anyway, in the spirit of... "innovation," we've decided that we might as well do our own World IP Day writing contest, but (again, in the spirit of "innovation") let's make it an "anti" contest.
"Anti" contests are so much less effective than "pro" contests. If their contest decrements innovation by 1 ("Innovation -- Improving Lives"), why not call for essays that do the opposite, say "Innovation++"?
There is only one statement that Plaintiff tries to argue was unsupported by facts: the claim that Plaintiff “has built up his entire reputation” on his claim to have invented email.
So Ayyadurai wants to argue that he is famous not just for inventing email, so that it is defamatory to say he built his reputation around his claim that he invented email?
The guy has a registered trademark for DR. EMAIL. I pulled his substitute specimen of use submitted with the application, advertising his "Dr. Email™ Consulting Services". And guess what it says?
Shiva Ayyadurai. a scientist-technologist, entrepreneur, inventor and educator, invented [sic] of one of the world's first E-MAIL systems for which he received the first U.S. Copyright on E-MAIL. He founded EchoMail, Inc. in 1993 and is an expert in the field of E-Mail.
In other words, in 1996, Ayyadurai admitted that other email programs existed at the time he wrote his program—which is exactly what TechDirt has been reporting since day one.
P.S. If you want us to read all the materials, post Ayyadurai's 77-page response along with the reply. And the affidavit. Especially the affidavit.
BTW, Monster isn't proceeding on the basis of its "MONSTER" marks but on the basis of any entirely separate set of trademarks relating to the word "BEAST", as shown in the documents at the bottom of the post.
The only likelihood of confusion I see in this story is Tim's objection over "Monster Energy asserting that beast is too close to monster and oh my god why is this universe such a silly, silly place?" Might want to fix that.
"[M]usic is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free."
The problem is that she is conflating "music" with a "recording" of the music.
The former is rare: you have to have a person with talent use an instrument to create "music". That's rare and extremely valuable, as demonstrated by concert tickets selling for hundreds of dollars.
The latter is not rare: once a music recording is made, a million copies can be generated in moments. A recording is worth something, but it's nowhere near as valuable as the "music". And that value is dropping by the day.
Rather than bemoan the loss of value in "recordings," go make money with what is "rare and valuable": actually making music. Just ask Ed Sheeran.
On the post: For World 'Intellectual Property' Day, A Reading From Thomas Macaulay
Life +
I'm just guessing he wouldn't have been too fond of "life +" copyright terms. It is well known that artists and authors produce fewer new works after they die.
On the post: Stop It. Trump's Lawyers Did Not Say That Protestors Have No First Amendment Right To Dissent
On the post: Feds Say Jewelry Company CEO Scrubbed Google Results With Fake Court Orders And Forged Judge's Signatures
Loyalty Program
On the post: Feds Say Jewelry Company CEO Scrubbed Google Results With Fake Court Orders And Forged Judge's Signatures
Re:
On the post: Artist Sues Church For Moving His 9/11 Memorial Sculpture
Exhibit Uh-Oh
We need to see Exhibit O before passing judgment on the agreement. But even without it, paragraph 42 of the Complaint reads decisively against Tobin:
If the Agreement contains an integration clause (no party relied on promises outside the agreement), he is going to have a hard time making his case.
As for the "mutilation" claim, it should be dismissed. Tobin doesn't allege any facts plausibly suggesting that the Church intentionally damaged the sculpture, much less did so with an intent to alter its artistic impression. The sculpture broke while being moved, something entirely permissible under the Agreement.
And not to excuse the Church's alleged duplicitous conduct, but the Complaint reads like sour grapes on Tobin's part: artist loses high-profile display in Lower Manhattan, files lawsuit complaining about the terms of an agreement he freely entered into. Keep us posted.
On the post: Actual Lawyer Thinks That Criminalizing Showing Murder On Facebook Will Prevent Murders On Facebook
Live News to Ban
2. Alison Parker and Adam Ward
3. Cleveland shooting
Good thing Mr. Zapruder wasn't filming on Facebook Live.
On the post: The Teddy Bear And Toaster Act Is Device Regulation Done Wrong
Connected toasters are crumby
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Ad Nauseam
While the statue still is there, the "ad" was removed two weeks ago. Apparently nobody noticed.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
I'm confused
On the post: Copyright Society's 'World IP Day' Lesson: Give Us Your Copyrights For Nothing
All in a Name
"Anti" contests are so much less effective than "pro" contests. If their contest decrements innovation by 1 ("Innovation -- Improving Lives"), why not call for essays that do the opposite, say "Innovation++"?
On the post: Latest Filings In Our First Amendment Fight; Please Help Keep True Independent Journalism From Being Silenced
Reputation Management
So Ayyadurai wants to argue that he is famous not just for inventing email, so that it is defamatory to say he built his reputation around his claim that he invented email?
The guy has a registered trademark for DR. EMAIL. I pulled his substitute specimen of use submitted with the application, advertising his "Dr. Email™ Consulting Services". And guess what it says?
In other words, in 1996, Ayyadurai admitted that other email programs existed at the time he wrote his program—which is exactly what TechDirt has been reporting since day one.
P.S. If you want us to read all the materials, post Ayyadurai's 77-page response along with the reply. And the affidavit. Especially the affidavit.
On the post: Newly Leaked Documents Expose Stunning Waste And Incompetence At The Copyright Office
FTFY
I believe that should be "Licensing System - Electronic (Lie)".
On the post: Monster Energy Attempts To Run From Laughable Trademark Spat It Started With Thunder Beast Root Beer
Re: All-You-Can-Pay Justice Buffet
BTW, Monster isn't proceeding on the basis of its "MONSTER" marks but on the basis of any entirely separate set of trademarks relating to the word "BEAST", as shown in the documents at the bottom of the post.
The only likelihood of confusion I see in this story is Tim's objection over "Monster Energy asserting that beast is too close to monster and oh my god why is this universe such a silly, silly place?" Might want to fix that.
On the post: If You're Going To Forge A Fake Court Order To Delete Search Results, Maybe Don't Choose A Prenda Case
Re:
Only one that didn't yet have a reputation.
On the post: Spotify (Basically) Tells Its Free Users, 'Go Pirate!'
Conflation
The problem is that she is conflating "music" with a "recording" of the music.
The former is rare: you have to have a person with talent use an instrument to create "music". That's rare and extremely valuable, as demonstrated by concert tickets selling for hundreds of dollars.
The latter is not rare: once a music recording is made, a million copies can be generated in moments. A recording is worth something, but it's nowhere near as valuable as the "music". And that value is dropping by the day.
Rather than bemoan the loss of value in "recordings," go make money with what is "rare and valuable": actually making music. Just ask Ed Sheeran.
On the post: If You're Going To Forge A Fake Court Order To Delete Search Results, Maybe Don't Choose A Prenda Case
Re: Coherent Thought
OK, time's up.
On the post: Judge Alsup Wants Uber & Waymo To Teach Him How To LiDAR Prior To Self-Driving Car Case
Re: Re: Re: Sounds familiar
Soft, as in crunchy.
On the post: Monster Energy Attempts To Run From Laughable Trademark Spat It Started With Thunder Beast Root Beer
All-You-Can-Pay Justice Buffet
On the post: Pennsylvania Court Says Bloggers Protected By Journalist Shield Law; Don't Have To Reveal Commenter IP Addresses
Did ACs just get promoted?
On the post: James Comey's New Idea: An International Encryption Backdoor Partnership
It's not a backdoor
Next >>