Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:22am
Rampant piracy
That's true. And a hot dog isn't a vibrator....but what's your point?
I am so going to find myself using that line at some point whether I want to or not.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Jul 2011 @ 8:56am
Re: Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
anyone with money anywhere OUT of existence then we'd all have free lollipops and blowjobs each saturday morning to go along with our communal circle jerk.
Surely that's spelt wrong? I can't think of ANY reason why the word "BLOWJOBS" would not be capitalised in that sentence.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Jul 2011 @ 10:56am
Re:
"Fair use doesn't include resale rights. Trying to resell the image on a stock photo site without a release for the main subject of the photo is risky. Legally, he is very likely to lose."
As descibed the photograph was of a person on top of the "artwork". That's not fair use? Well bang goes any photograph that includes for example any architectural structure as a background... someone will certainly have "rights" to people being able to see those in a picture. So you can only sell a photo against a natural background then? Well until someone who planted the tree claims "rights" over that too of course.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Jul 2011 @ 12:07pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have an attitude towards amateur artist. I think they are amateur for two good reasons: time and money. They don't have enough of either when they are busy doing the 9 to 5 (or 11 to 7 night shift), trying to take care of personal matters, and perhaps getting a couple of hours a week to sit down to make music. On that scale, they should turn out a U2 or Coldplay level hit in about, what, 200 years? They might get lucky earlier, but will anyone ever really know?
Or to Paraphrase: "Every musician that is not signed to a major label is a largely talentless dilletante just messing about with music tin their spare time when they can be bothered."
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 1:18am
Re: Re: Re: Apple has the "app store" --- get over it.
Actually, you switched to off topic. Focus please. It's not your opinion of the software (don't be jealous) that matters here. It's who owns the name. And yes, first one to raise their hand gets the name.
Would you prefer if i said; "With a business primarily focused on consumer-oriented computing-type products, often with as much if not more 'fashion value' as substance, it is natural that Apple would be the first to actually succeed with marketing such an application repository and shopfront. It's primary value for Apple and others is in enabling them to capitalise on high-volume, low-value products in an efficient manner, which is wholly in keeping with their perceived business model, and the store itself is heavy on the "cool but pointless" products that succeed best in that space. However, being the first to succeed with something that, as you point out, others had already done before does not in my mind have anything to do with attempting to hijack an obvious and generic term for the function of the system to be a proper and exclusive name for anything. Hardly an "insight" I feel, more a lazy day for a marketing exec."
It was shorter the first time though.
Yet, Microsoft was able to Trademark that common name as well.
Which, to my mind, points at something very broken in the trademark system rather than something good that one should just "get over".
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 6:46am
Re: Lobbynomics
I think activists will get a lot of mileage from this word "lobbynomics".
Except as a "created" word could it not be argued that its use falls under copyright? If a specific arrangement of already existing words is copyrightable then surely a wholly new word is. Copyright.... making perfect logical sense since 1709. :-)
It is a top word though and a copyright suit about it would provide delicious irony.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 6:45am
Re: Lobbynomics
I think activists will get a lot of mileage from this word "lobbynomics".
Except as a "created" word could it not be argued that its use falls under copyright? If a specific arrangement of already existing words is copyrightable then surely a wholly new word is. Copyright.... making perfect logical sense since 1709. :-)
It is a top word though and a copyright suit about it would provide delicious irony.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 1:33am
Lyrics getting strained?
Land of the free (as long as you do exactly what you're told)
and the Home of the Brave (enough to mutter under your breath when the authorities bend you over to take it). hmmmm the tune might need changing.
A shining example for democracy everywhere, bravo! *polite clap*. Next thing you know you'll be just as far down the road towards police state as the UK.....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 8:49am
Re:
I'd kind of agree with you except to say "where's the magic line?" It's not like it's an uncommon phenomenon to put someone famous on an album cover... I doubt Warner music asked Charles Hawtrey for example (since he was dead at the time).
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 May 2011 @ 9:03am
Re:
You left off the end of the sentence: "First, more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators for new abusive registrations." Adding gTLDs would do this, so I don't see how the claim is so ridiculous.
Networking 101: "Internet space" is limited by the number of IP addresses NOT the number of DNS names (which is already infinite for all practical purposes).
If they want to start a campaign of lobbying against IPv6 using this argument it might actually be logically consistent though no less dumb - not that they'll get very far with that either....
So no, it's yet another "EVERYTHING IS INFRINGEMENT IF IT MIGHT CHANGE HOW WE DO THINGS" argument from people who either don't, or choose not to, understand the technology and is logical in no way.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 May 2011 @ 8:57am
Missing something?
Have I misunderstood how trademarks work? I though they only applied in the area of commerce the trademark was sought in. I.e. if you sell "Crappo (tm) Toilets", you don't theoretically have a trademark claim if someone decides to create "Crappo Air Transport"?
So unless I'm wrong about that the argument:
The worry is that unscrupulous actors will use the expanded gTLD space to register domain names using well known trademarks, or variations on such trademarks, and that those sites will be used to defraud consumers, and harm the value of the infringed upon brand.
is a steaming pile or horse manure.
If someone uses the same name in another TLD, if they are in the same business as you or trying to pass themselves off as you it's infringement, if they're doing something different it's not infringement no matter how much you might dislike what they are doing.... right?
Or am i guilty of using logic and sense applying to a "But! But..... INFRINGEMENT!!" argument?
In a slightly oblique point I was under the impression that the number of possible infringing sites was more likely to be limited by failing to move to IPv6 than adding to the already infinite-for-practical-purposes number of DNS names possible. When do we see the Copyright Alliance lobbying to prevent THAT is what I want to know?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 May 2011 @ 3:29am
Re: Re:
So you read the bit at the beginning that raised a verbal contract right?
Of course not. That would preclude being able to point out how dumb Nina is and how great it is to involve expensive lawyers in the minutia of every single day-to-day interaction.
Odd that the fact the museum paid up anyway was also ignored though - that's usually considered a win for a lawyer even though it wasn't what Nina was after. I wonder if the "win" would have been forcing the museum to use the art in it's exhibit with a contract whether they wanted to or not, or having a contact that allowed the museum to lock up the unused art instead of it still being released, or whether that even matters? I suspect the "win" may have been having a contract at all so more lawyers needed to be paid......
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 May 2011 @ 3:07am
Re: pro-paper
Is an email saying:
"Yeah I'll do [that art] for you and hand it over well in time for your exhibition and after you get it you can do what you like with it (so can anyone by the way... check [this link to the license] to see what that means if you're curious). And your going to give me $xxx for it? That's cool, thanks."
...any less clear? Is it ambiguous? Does it not form an agreement that goes as far as you need if you don't plan to argue about the terms in a court of law anyway?
There are many cases where the deliverables and timings and all sorts of complexity demand more rigour, but this hardly seems to be one of them. The equation of:
Deliver bunch of really cool Indian art = You give me money if you want to
Seems to encompass it nicely. Why complicate things? It seems to me the "mediator B" in this case to be acceptable to the museum would almost certainly have been a lawyer of some kind and inevitably not free and would most likely have lead to more wrangling rather than less.
On the post: Zero-Sum Economics
Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Rampant piracy
I am so going to find myself using that line at some point whether I want to or not.
On the post: Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright
Re: Re: Stock answer: AVOID DERIVATIVE.
Surely that's spelt wrong? I can't think of ANY reason why the word "BLOWJOBS" would not be capitalised in that sentence.
On the post: Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist
Re: Re: "do the exact opposite of the stated intentions"
Very Shatner-esque
On the post: Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist
Re:
As descibed the photograph was of a person on top of the "artwork". That's not fair use? Well bang goes any photograph that includes for example any architectural structure as a background... someone will certainly have "rights" to people being able to see those in a picture. So you can only sell a photo against a natural background then? Well until someone who planted the tree claims "rights" over that too of course.
On the post: Ericsson Recognizes That 'Piracy' Isn't The Problem, But A Symptom Of Failed Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or to Paraphrase:
"Every musician that is not signed to a major label is a largely talentless dilletante just messing about with music tin their spare time when they can be bothered."
WOW is that soooo accurate.
On the post: Apple Goes After Open Source Startup For Daring To Use The Term 'App Store'
Re: Re: Re: Apple has the "app store" --- get over it.
Would you prefer if i said; "With a business primarily focused on consumer-oriented computing-type products, often with as much if not more 'fashion value' as substance, it is natural that Apple would be the first to actually succeed with marketing such an application repository and shopfront. It's primary value for Apple and others is in enabling them to capitalise on high-volume, low-value products in an efficient manner, which is wholly in keeping with their perceived business model, and the store itself is heavy on the "cool but pointless" products that succeed best in that space. However, being the first to succeed with something that, as you point out, others had already done before does not in my mind have anything to do with attempting to hijack an obvious and generic term for the function of the system to be a proper and exclusive name for anything. Hardly an "insight" I feel, more a lazy day for a marketing exec."
It was shorter the first time though.
Which, to my mind, points at something very broken in the trademark system rather than something good that one should just "get over".
On the post: Sony's Insane Fear Of 'Piracy' Means Many Movies Now Suck In Digital Theaters
Re:
On the post: Today's Copyright Laws: For Imbeciles And Lobbyists Only
Re: Lobbynomics
Except as a "created" word could it not be argued that its use falls under copyright? If a specific arrangement of already existing words is copyrightable then surely a wholly new word is. Copyright.... making perfect logical sense since 1709. :-)
It is a top word though and a copyright suit about it would provide delicious irony.
On the post: Today's Copyright Laws: For Imbeciles And Lobbyists Only
Re: Lobbynomics
Except as a "created" word could it not be argued that its use falls under copyright? If a specific arrangement of already existing words is copyrightable then surely a wholly new word is. Copyright.... making perfect logical sense since 1709. :-)
It is a top word though and a copyright suit about it would provide delicious irony.
On the post: Kevin Spacey Threatens Musician For Offering Album Called 'Kevinspacey'
Re:
Only permitted if you affect a Welsh accent while saying it.
On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant
Lyrics getting strained?
and the Home of the Brave (enough to mutter under your breath when the authorities bend you over to take it). hmmmm the tune might need changing.
A shining example for democracy everywhere, bravo! *polite clap*. Next thing you know you'll be just as far down the road towards police state as the UK.....
On the post: Kevin Spacey Threatens Musician For Offering Album Called 'Kevinspacey'
Re:
On the post: Winklevii Promise To Appeal To Supreme Court
Re: Re: Appropriate quote....
On the post: Winklevii Promise To Appeal To Supreme Court
Appropriate quote....
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Come Out Against New TLDs Because It Creates 'More Space' For Infringement
Re:
Networking 101: "Internet space" is limited by the number of IP addresses NOT the number of DNS names (which is already infinite for all practical purposes).
If they want to start a campaign of lobbying against IPv6 using this argument it might actually be logically consistent though no less dumb - not that they'll get very far with that either....
So no, it's yet another "EVERYTHING IS INFRINGEMENT IF IT MIGHT CHANGE HOW WE DO THINGS" argument from people who either don't, or choose not to, understand the technology and is logical in no way.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Come Out Against New TLDs Because It Creates 'More Space' For Infringement
Missing something?
So unless I'm wrong about that the argument:
is a steaming pile or horse manure.
If someone uses the same name in another TLD, if they are in the same business as you or trying to pass themselves off as you it's infringement, if they're doing something different it's not infringement no matter how much you might dislike what they are doing.... right?
Or am i guilty of using logic and sense applying to a "But! But..... INFRINGEMENT!!" argument?
In a slightly oblique point I was under the impression that the number of possible infringing sites was more likely to be limited by failing to move to IPv6 than adding to the already infinite-for-practical-purposes number of DNS names possible. When do we see the Copyright Alliance lobbying to prevent THAT is what I want to know?
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
Re: Re:
Of course not. That would preclude being able to point out how dumb Nina is and how great it is to involve expensive lawyers in the minutia of every single day-to-day interaction.
Odd that the fact the museum paid up anyway was also ignored though - that's usually considered a win for a lawyer even though it wasn't what Nina was after. I wonder if the "win" would have been forcing the museum to use the art in it's exhibit with a contract whether they wanted to or not, or having a contact that allowed the museum to lock up the unused art instead of it still being released, or whether that even matters? I suspect the "win" may have been having a contract at all so more lawyers needed to be paid......
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
Re: pro-paper
"Yeah I'll do [that art] for you and hand it over well in time for your exhibition and after you get it you can do what you like with it (so can anyone by the way... check [this link to the license] to see what that means if you're curious). And your going to give me $xxx for it? That's cool, thanks."
...any less clear? Is it ambiguous? Does it not form an agreement that goes as far as you need if you don't plan to argue about the terms in a court of law anyway?
There are many cases where the deliverables and timings and all sorts of complexity demand more rigour, but this hardly seems to be one of them. The equation of:
Deliver bunch of really cool Indian art = You give me money if you want to
Seems to encompass it nicely. Why complicate things? It seems to me the "mediator B" in this case to be acceptable to the museum would almost certainly have been a lawyer of some kind and inevitably not free and would most likely have lead to more wrangling rather than less.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Mike Masnick pats himself on the back!!!
Errrmmmm.... isn't the point of voting rather that other people patted him on the back? Or are we using the Bush voting system here?
Next >>