"Why not just pay for the initial costume design and be done with it."
Because the producers wanted to save on their upfront costs. Putting on such a show is expensive. If the show was a flop, they'd only have to pay out a little bit for the costumes. But even if it did well, which it did, they'd only have to pay a little bit for each use.
Um, because copyright is even more draconian than criminal law? You don't see criminals who steal a CDs worth of music from Walmart being ordered to pay million dollar judgments.
An analogy should be analogous. Maybe you can remember that for next time.
A fully automatic weapon is illegal to own, possess, or manufacturer in the US. So in that circumstance the person who modded a semi-automatic weapon to be fully automatic could be charged and convicted. That's the law.
However, in this current instance, unlocked modems are perfectly legal. There is no analogous law regarding cable modems as there are with automatic weapons. Accordingly, your analogy fails because the situations are completely different.
It's clear that his mods hurt the business models of cable ISPs. And we all know that protecting business models is more important than any constitutional right a citizen might have.
While I agree (see below) that the jury should not have been alone with the laptop. However, if all the jury did was watch video, e.g., on a dvd player, there is simply no reason to have someone watch them. Anymore so than watching them while they read properly admitted transcripts and documents. The jury really should be alone when they deliberate and should be watched over only in very limited circumstances.
but it still makes you wonder why the jury was allowed to use the prosecutor's laptop without supervision. Why not get another laptop?
I'll take your second question first, maybe you should try working in a court. Do you think we work in Best Buy? That we have shelves filled with laptops to use? The Circuit I work for has no laptops available. So that's probably why they used the prosecutor's.
As to why the jury was allowed to watch it without supervision, that's probably a good question. If the disc could have played on a "clean" laptop or a DVD player, certainly the jury could have watched it without supervision. But simply sending a computer with unknown contents into the jury room was a huge mistake and quite bizarre.
"Your Honor, the CD is in my laptop..."
I won't even attempt to make sense of that nonsense.
Agreed. If there is no ambiguity, what's the fricken deal?
For example, anyone with a brain should be able to distinguish between the intended use/misuse of "there, their, and they're" solely from the surrounding context. So why point that the writer used the wrong one? Not only does it not add to the discussion, it outright detracts from the discussion.
Maybe you're kidding, but there is not "sense of humor" test in trademark. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.
Think of it this way, if Jones soda company started selling cola in a bottle identical in every detail to Coke's bottle, with the expressed intent of tricking people into thinking it was really Coke, could the owners of Jones soda get away with it because, "Hey it was a joke, we were only kidding. God, get a sense of humor dudes!"
"the site is most certainly not an obvious parody. It's designed to look real"
Agreed, the purpose of the site was to deceive people into thinking it was really the Chamber of Commerce. Most satire/parody is a balance. You let the audience know who you're ridiculing just enough to not completely copy who you're ridiculing.
I also agree that any trademark claim is much stronger than any copyright claim. What exactly is their copyright claim? It appears they're using the DMCA because it would be faster than a traditional trademark lawsuit.
To me it doesn't matter whether the agreement was even hidden. I highly doubt it said that,
"I Amber Duick agree that Toyota and all its agents and assigns have the full and legal right to pretend to stalk me."
What the agreement probably said was that Duick was willing to accept marketing from Toyota. But that certainly didn't happen here. As you point out, how can this BS sell more Toyotas?
On the post: Bluebeat Claims It Owns Beatles Copyright By Re-recording Songs; Judge Disagrees
I think they're the copyright equivalent to the Yes Men.
On the post: Costume Designer Claims Riverdance Needs To Pay A Royalty For Every Performance
Re: Re: Uh?
On the post: Costume Designer Claims Riverdance Needs To Pay A Royalty For Every Performance
Re: Re: Are they his designs
Because the producers wanted to save on their upfront costs. Putting on such a show is expensive. If the show was a flop, they'd only have to pay out a little bit for the costumes. But even if it did well, which it did, they'd only have to pay a little bit for each use.
On the post: Why Do Canada And Europe Copyright Money?
Um, because copyright is even more draconian than criminal law? You don't see criminals who steal a CDs worth of music from Walmart being ordered to pay million dollar judgments.
On the post: Guy Who Helped Mod Cable Modems Arrested By The FBI
Re: Re: Re:
A fully automatic weapon is illegal to own, possess, or manufacturer in the US. So in that circumstance the person who modded a semi-automatic weapon to be fully automatic could be charged and convicted. That's the law.
However, in this current instance, unlocked modems are perfectly legal. There is no analogous law regarding cable modems as there are with automatic weapons. Accordingly, your analogy fails because the situations are completely different.
Thanks for trying.
On the post: Guy Who Helped Mod Cable Modems Arrested By The FBI
Re:
So arrest the people who use the modems to steal not the guy who modded them.
Do you arrest the guy who makes and sells crow bars or the person who buys and then uses the crow bar to break into cars and houses to steal?
On the post: Guy Who Helped Mod Cable Modems Arrested By The FBI
On the post: Case Appealed Because Jurors Were Allowed To Use Prosecutor's Laptop
Re:
On the post: Case Appealed Because Jurors Were Allowed To Use Prosecutor's Laptop
Re: What?
On the post: Case Appealed Because Jurors Were Allowed To Use Prosecutor's Laptop
I'll take your second question first, maybe you should try working in a court. Do you think we work in Best Buy? That we have shelves filled with laptops to use? The Circuit I work for has no laptops available. So that's probably why they used the prosecutor's.
As to why the jury was allowed to watch it without supervision, that's probably a good question. If the disc could have played on a "clean" laptop or a DVD player, certainly the jury could have watched it without supervision. But simply sending a computer with unknown contents into the jury room was a huge mistake and quite bizarre.
"Your Honor, the CD is in my laptop..."
I won't even attempt to make sense of that nonsense.
On the post: Once Again: DVRs Not Killing TV, But Helping It
Considering the MPAA has not acknowledged that its members have greatly benefited from the VCR, I think you're in for a long wait.
The first rule of the copyright maximalist is to never concede any point. No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
On the post: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strikes Down Ridiculously Overbroad Trademark Law
The legislators didn't think. They simply passed the law as written by lobbyists.
On the post: Grammar Nazis: Useful Language Experts, Or Elitist Snobs?
For example, anyone with a brain should be able to distinguish between the intended use/misuse of "there, their, and they're" solely from the surrounding context. So why point that the writer used the wrong one? Not only does it not add to the discussion, it outright detracts from the discussion.
On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Uses DMCA Claim Against Yes Men Prank Site
Re: A new "test"?
Think of it this way, if Jones soda company started selling cola in a bottle identical in every detail to Coke's bottle, with the expressed intent of tricking people into thinking it was really Coke, could the owners of Jones soda get away with it because, "Hey it was a joke, we were only kidding. God, get a sense of humor dudes!"
No, they could not.
On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Uses DMCA Claim Against Yes Men Prank Site
Agreed, the purpose of the site was to deceive people into thinking it was really the Chamber of Commerce. Most satire/parody is a balance. You let the audience know who you're ridiculing just enough to not completely copy who you're ridiculing.
I also agree that any trademark claim is much stronger than any copyright claim. What exactly is their copyright claim? It appears they're using the DMCA because it would be faster than a traditional trademark lawsuit.
On the post: Bad Idea Central: Toyota Sued After Viral Marketing Attempt Convinced Woman She Was Being Stalked
What the agreement probably said was that Duick was willing to accept marketing from Toyota. But that certainly didn't happen here. As you point out, how can this BS sell more Toyotas?
On the post: Advance Fee Scams Are Based On Greed, So Their New Favorite Target? Lawyers!
On the post: Prosecutors Subpoena Tons Of Info On Student Journalists Who Provided Information To Reopen Murder Case
Really? All information? The astronomical age of alpha centauri? The ingredients of Coke? The social security number of the unknown comic?
On the post: Trying To Explain The Economics Of Abundance In Two Minutes Or Less With A Whiteboard
On the post: The Perils Of Extrapolation: Who Knows What The Next Disruptive Innovation Will Be
Re: Re:
Next >>