...seems to confuse who has market power (e.g., claiming that Google paying billions to Apple is some sort of proof of its own dominance)...
Yes... something something something komplete.
If Google is paying Apple (BusinessInsider and DOJ suggest $12B) it would seem to non-lawyer me that Google is clearly NOT in charge of the market.
I'll try not to use an analogy, which is my favorite way of communicating, and instead hit this screw on its philips head ("+" in Canada and Australia). The CONTROL OF THE MARKET is in Apple's hands. Apple collects payments from other companies (e.g. Google) in order to promote the use of Google's search engine.
If, inter alia, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Linkedin, and Axios ALL took money from Google to have Google be the primary search engine provider... in my mind that doesn't cement Google as a monopoly, an antitrust violator, etc. If Microsoft wanted Bing to be in that spot, they could fund the same dollars. That's not a monopoly nor is it antitrust.
It's RICO for sure. I know Mr. Hat will agree.
Ehud
P.S. Yes, I know Mr. White's last name is not Hat, but the South Park reference was too good to pass up.
Platforms. Companies that put their resources to give to others -- usually for near free -- do have the right to NOT moderate or moderate as they see fit. Most choose to leave things alone.
I appreciate that others (such as you) agree with me. I also appreciate those who disagree with me. What I don't like is those who won't think.
In any event, I'm going to call it a day. The FTC is now defanged. The FCC is self-defanged. It's just a disaster.
Resume: I've ran three ISPs, one of which was a public company.
DNS Registrars -- particularly in the United States -- have been coopted in being censors. When they're not being censors they're handing out domain names to US Government agencies who [for now] think they have the power to "seize" those things. This will change in time, but for now... as we say inevitably, it is what it is.
However, RARELY have domain names been "seized" for content. What typically happens is a domain registrar says they will discontinue services for that domain name. We can argue breach of contract law, but when you can get service from 1723843 other DNS providers it's hard to show real damages.
...only ISP in an area?
Okay, this is an excellent point. I'm thinking you hit a nail on the head there. If there is only one way for you to get online and you get cut off for "inappropriate[whatever]" content... that would seem to be a good case.
It's not 1AM. There's no act of Congress. It's a civil breach of contract [terms] so depending on what TOCs/AUPs you agreed to... that's the key.
Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer. Unfortunately I'm not. Justice has taken a back seat to the "Legal System".
For the second time in this thread -- when you start a sentence with "Actually" or "Nope" you invent the concept that you know more than the author, or the reader. Sadly, this is not the case.
Your thesis about the SCOTUS interpretation of 1A for corps is wrong. Let me know if you want me to go into detail.
It's a constitutionally granted right.
Yes, that part you got right. However you didn't read the First Amendment before you said that. It says "Congress shall make no law..." It says nothing about "Facebook won't censor idiots" or "TechDirt won't shut up idiots" or "Ehud Gavron won't put up with idiots."
I'm not the brightest bulb in the room, but at least I don't darken it. Hold the line against the night.
When you start a sentence with "Nope" or "Actually" you imply you know something the original author did not, and that the reader will kindly thank you for informing him/her about. Not so this time.
Nobody misrepresented what YOU said. YOU misrepersented what others have said.
Trying to respond to all the false stuff you made up would take up too much of anyone's time -- like mine to write -- and others to read. Go form your own website, call it TechClean. Make up your own facts. Better yet, have a good time on Parler. That's [almost] French for "Adults are talking now. Be quiet or go to your room."
Socialist - someone who believes the public good can be done by sharing resources. My definition; blame me if it's not what you think.
Communist - a politically forced version of the above except there are the haves and have nots.
There's no such thing as a "closet communist". That having been said the right of people to assemble has nothing to do with sharing resources. You can argue that preventing such an assembly by the government is a First Amendment violation... and you'd likely be right... but it has NOTHING to do with whether you are a democrat, republican, socialist, communist, libertarian, middle-of-the-road-ian, etc.
Congress has made NO LAWS preventing peaceable assembly. End of story.
Thanks. I needed some distraction from real news so this is good. Also unpacking is lots of fun, so let's unpack.
Better clarify [who should clarify, and what criteria is better?] for hypothetical new readers [implies there are no new readers based on... um... nothing. Do you have TD's readership list? Oh. No? I guess we'll skip forward.]
neo-fascist Masnick (you'll want to look up that big word. Mr. Masnick is not a right-wing person. That means he can't be a fascist. Sucks, donut?)
asserts the above (wait, which of the "above" assertions do you refer to? You can't just say "see above" LOL!! You go see above!)
.... in connection with his wish... (you have no idea what Mr. Masnick wishes for, now do ya?)
...that corporations hae the power to control ALL speech on the Internet (Mr. Masnick has never said that CORPORATIONS or PARTNERSHIPS or SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS or INDIVIDUALS should control anything. If I had to sum my perspective on his written text it would be that he espouses that GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT control... not that anyone SHOULD control. Subtle, that whole "not" thing, and then making up stuff about corporations.)
It's truly a KEY assertion for him (Wait, which one? The "one" above? The Corporation bullshit? Explain it like you understand it.)
...handily points out... (well I guess if by handily you mean easily, he's pretty facile with written English so good on him! You meant it as an insult... as if he does so without thought. If you're looking for speech without thought try the bathroom mirror.)
...that corps... (again with the corporations. Read Mr. Masnick's work. Try not to intuit words that aren't there. Bathroom mirror.)
...don't have 4th Amendment rights against arbitrary search (Uh, what the heck is "arbitrary search"??? Are you creating new case law in a TechDirt comment thread?)
...then his 1A assertions necessarily collapse. (Well you'll have to explain to this old dog why you'll write our 4th Amendment in full, but when it comes to the 1st Amendment you write 1A. Are you perhaps a failed 1L?
Nothing necessarily collapses except specious random gibberish, of which you provided plenty of excellent examples.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. (Credit: A Sandler)
Faber wrote that corporations must "dish upon demand."
I have a question meant to elicit information, not disagreement:
And yet, for a counter example and not for politics, the Trump Organization ("scheme") has yet to produce any of the documents sought by AUSAs and the SDNY and private citizens (alleging among other things rape).
Why is it that one company can say "No, Shanks" to AUSAs, but other companies named above have to "dish upon demand" to the ENTIRELY INEFFECTUAL AND NEUTERED AND STUPID FTC?
What recourse do these companies have to hire good (or unethical) lawyers and say "Aw hell no, Karen!"?
I get it. That's her job. Everybody's gotta make a buck.
That's one take. I've been told for years I could make a lot more bucks as a cocaine dealer. This would be true. I also could fly helicopters into Mexico and pick up drugs without showing up on radar. This also would be true.
I suppose I could do many many unethical and evil things to make a buck. It takes ethics, honesty, and integrity to Do The Right Thing.
Also shout out to ThatOneGuy who once again nailed it in Comment#1.
"No upright fundamental Christian would admit to letting himself get bossed around by a Jew."
No upright fundamental pro-life fascist would allow the elimination of any life (which begins with the first toast at the bar) at all.
But if someone is on death row, hey, bring out the firing squad, and shoot their asses dead. Immediately. Cancel all these automatic appeals. Appellate courts and the SCOTUS have important things to do so no time to deal with PIDDLY things like human lives.
Just kill them all. Let God sort it out. Just not pre-born babies.
Ehud
P.S. I hear tell Jesus was a Jew. I guess he didn't get converted to Christianity before the Romans killed him. Not going to win any friends going further with this thread... but which hell or heaven is he in?
Nikola failure is its reward for being... a failure
Tim, good analysis. I would like to differ with:
The trouble for Nikola Motor Company began only in September...
A company with no products, no customers, and a business plan built on saying "Hey, check out what others in the market are doing! We'll do it too! And better! Can we get another round of financing?" wasn't destined for the acme of success.
Their video was great. Yes, the semi tractor-trailer had no engine or transmission or power cell and was going downhill, but great video. The problem is they lied to investors (SEC investigation forthcoming, I'm guessing) and they lied to potential business partners (GM).
One can say "Blockchain, Crypto, Bitcoin, Emissions Free, Green Carbon Neutral" all day long... but to get the funding one has to show their work. Nikola did not show their work... mostly, I guess, because they didn't do the work.
I've said "I guess" and "I'm guessing" twice, so consider this my opinion, but -- as in all cases involving this much money being wasted on executive salaries and faked truck movie runs -- the truth will come out.
If any TDers invested in Nikola... please share your experience. 2020 is the year that keeps on giving...
TD has covered this ad nauseum. Content-based filters don't properly understand the nuances of content, context, means, method, and purpose. In the name of copyright (see Disney thread) and other reasons the ideas are geared to one-sided censorship (which CJEU is clearly against) and not to protecting people's rights to use the Internet.
The Internet is not a magic carpet. It's a communication medium. Add in the "cloud" (amorphous "we don't know what it is so we drew it as a cloud") and it's a storage medium as well. Neither should be subject to these content-based restrictions.
OB BS: Think of the children. Sure, don't upload child porn to Google Drive. Got it. But now that we've deal with the children, the rest of content should be protected.
OB Anecdotal: If I 'get' 1TB "cloud" storage from Google Drive and I choose to sync my files to it, I ought to be able to... you know... sync my files to it. If one is named star.wars.episode.1.mkv so be it. But what if I rename it -- no worries, the EU wants Google to hash my file and figure out it's still the Star Wars movie. What if I change the last byte of the movie to 0xFF? Fingerprinting will take care of that. What if I have every 5th frame modified? Maybe another method will solve that for them. What if I JUST ENCRYPT IT? LEOs want a back door so that the encryption can be broken... and you can bet if they get it, they WILL expect online service providers to use the same back door to decrypt files and check the same. Again, we the users get it up the back door.
In the pre-"DMCA is right and everyone should follow our lead on this" world (1993-2000) the Internet flourished. Now, restrictions are piling on day by day.
Do you like your Freedom Of Speech™? Just apply to the EU Ministry of Free Speech for your License to Speak first, and include all content you intend to provide. You may not deviate from this content -- if approved. An approval may come within 30-60 days. Fees will apply. Have a nice day.
When you buy a house, or a car, or a plane, or a boat, or any real-estate, the transaction is a one-time deal, so you pay, buyer gets paid, brokers make money, and all is good.
If you want to equate real-estate with copyright residuals you could try "rental property." Someone owns rental property. You sign a lease. You pay monthly. You get to stay there. If you quit paying, you are out of there.
Except there are two important differences that make that an unfortunately bad analogy. 1) With copyright you don't "live there" so you can't be "thrown out". 2) If the owner sells the house the seller is supposed to assume the obligations (i.e. "honor the lease") but YOU are not a party to that agreement. So they may choose to throw you out, but YOUR agreement with old-owner is still in force.
Of course without seeing the contract transferring copyright and providing for residuals [and I am not a lawyer] I won't opine further on the specifics.
Hollywood has a reputation, and the music studios do too, and TD has covered it quite extensively. Is it POSSIBLE that in this ONE CASE they did the artist (ADF) a solid and "it just didn't work out; lose my number"? Sure, it's possible.
It's more likely they shuffled assets and are bluffing. He needs a good legal team (Disney can't be shamed into "doing the right thing"... they're a publicly traded corporation started by an anti-semite racist ruthless businessman who wanted to prey on children).
Even if ADF did get a great legal team would this stop Disney from doing this to other artists (and it's more than just authors... think music composers, set designers, etc.). Disney can hire as many lawyers as Donald can, and create more legal noise, until any rational brain will overload and crash.
The legal nuance of being able to sell the copyright but not the requirement to provide the residuals... isn't "baffling"... it's "blatant conversion". That gets proven in front of a jury.
On the post: Embarrassing: New Antitrust Suit Against Google Confuses WhatsApp Encrypted Backup Option With Giving Google A Backdoor
If I pay someone... how am I the bad guy?
Yes... something something something komplete.
If Google is paying Apple (BusinessInsider and DOJ suggest $12B) it would seem to non-lawyer me that Google is clearly NOT in charge of the market.
I'll try not to use an analogy, which is my favorite way of communicating, and instead hit this screw on its philips head ("+" in Canada and Australia). The CONTROL OF THE MARKET is in Apple's hands. Apple collects payments from other companies (e.g. Google) in order to promote the use of Google's search engine.
If, inter alia, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Linkedin, and Axios ALL took money from Google to have Google be the primary search engine provider... in my mind that doesn't cement Google as a monopoly, an antitrust violator, etc. If Microsoft wanted Bing to be in that spot, they could fund the same dollars. That's not a monopoly nor is it antitrust.
It's RICO for sure. I know Mr. Hat will agree.
Ehud
P.S. Yes, I know Mr. White's last name is not Hat, but the South Park reference was too good to pass up.
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Re: Re: inside the booth libertarian
A semicolon separates sentences, not fragments.
What did you study? What were your sources? Where is the analysis?
E
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Re: Re: Nope. Actually.
Platforms. Companies that put their resources to give to others -- usually for near free -- do have the right to NOT moderate or moderate as they see fit. Most choose to leave things alone.
I appreciate that others (such as you) agree with me. I also appreciate those who disagree with me. What I don't like is those who won't think.
In any event, I'm going to call it a day. The FTC is now defanged. The FCC is self-defanged. It's just a disaster.
E
On the post: USA Today Publishes Yet Another Bogus OpEd Against 230, Completely Misrepresents The Law
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure what that means, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, because English is not my first language either:
Nope.
Actually.
E
On the post: USA Today Publishes Yet Another Bogus OpEd Against 230, Completely Misrepresents The Law
ISPs, DNS, etc.
Resume: I've ran three ISPs, one of which was a public company.
DNS Registrars -- particularly in the United States -- have been coopted in being censors. When they're not being censors they're handing out domain names to US Government agencies who [for now] think they have the power to "seize" those things. This will change in time, but for now... as we say inevitably, it is what it is.
However, RARELY have domain names been "seized" for content. What typically happens is a domain registrar says they will discontinue services for that domain name. We can argue breach of contract law, but when you can get service from 1723843 other DNS providers it's hard to show real damages.
Okay, this is an excellent point. I'm thinking you hit a nail on the head there. If there is only one way for you to get online and you get cut off for "inappropriate[whatever]" content... that would seem to be a good case.
It's not 1AM. There's no act of Congress. It's a civil breach of contract [terms] so depending on what TOCs/AUPs you agreed to... that's the key.
Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer. Unfortunately I'm not. Justice has taken a back seat to the "Legal System".
E
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Again with the "Actually"
For the second time in this thread -- when you start a sentence with "Actually" or "Nope" you invent the concept that you know more than the author, or the reader. Sadly, this is not the case.
Your thesis about the SCOTUS interpretation of 1A for corps is wrong. Let me know if you want me to go into detail.
Yes, that part you got right. However you didn't read the First Amendment before you said that. It says "Congress shall make no law..." It says nothing about "Facebook won't censor idiots" or "TechDirt won't shut up idiots" or "Ehud Gavron won't put up with idiots."
I'm not the brightest bulb in the room, but at least I don't darken it. Hold the line against the night.
E
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Nope. Actually.
When you start a sentence with "Nope" or "Actually" you imply you know something the original author did not, and that the reader will kindly thank you for informing him/her about. Not so this time.
Nobody misrepresented what YOU said. YOU misrepersented what others have said.
Trying to respond to all the false stuff you made up would take up too much of anyone's time -- like mine to write -- and others to read. Go form your own website, call it TechClean. Make up your own facts. Better yet, have a good time on Parler. That's [almost] French for "Adults are talking now. Be quiet or go to your room."
E
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Re: Re: Corporations are NOT persons with rights: gov't can DEMA
^^^ That.
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Closet communist
Socialist - someone who believes the public good can be done by sharing resources. My definition; blame me if it's not what you think.
Communist - a politically forced version of the above except there are the haves and have nots.
There's no such thing as a "closet communist". That having been said the right of people to assemble has nothing to do with sharing resources. You can argue that preventing such an assembly by the government is a First Amendment violation... and you'd likely be right... but it has NOTHING to do with whether you are a democrat, republican, socialist, communist, libertarian, middle-of-the-road-ian, etc.
Congress has made NO LAWS preventing peaceable assembly. End of story.
E
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Masnick is a neo-fascist (or so I read)
Thanks. I needed some distraction from real news so this is good. Also unpacking is lots of fun, so let's unpack.
Nothing necessarily collapses except specious random gibberish, of which you provided plenty of excellent examples.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. (Credit: A Sandler)
E
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Re: Re: Re: So your key assertion of "First Amendment right
No, that's not communism.
It's RICO.
E
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Dish upon demand
Faber wrote that corporations must "dish upon demand."
I have a question meant to elicit information, not disagreement:
And yet, for a counter example and not for politics, the Trump Organization ("scheme") has yet to produce any of the documents sought by AUSAs and the SDNY and private citizens (alleging among other things rape).
Why is it that one company can say "No, Shanks" to AUSAs, but other companies named above have to "dish upon demand" to the ENTIRELY INEFFECTUAL AND NEUTERED AND STUPID FTC?
What recourse do these companies have to hire good (or unethical) lawyers and say "Aw hell no, Karen!"?
E
On the post: USA Today Publishes Yet Another Bogus OpEd Against 230, Completely Misrepresents The Law
Gotta make a buck
That's one take. I've been told for years I could make a lot more bucks as a cocaine dealer. This would be true. I also could fly helicopters into Mexico and pick up drugs without showing up on radar. This also would be true.
I suppose I could do many many unethical and evil things to make a buck. It takes ethics, honesty, and integrity to Do The Right Thing.
Also shout out to ThatOneGuy who once again nailed it in Comment#1.
E
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Darn Jews
Yes :)
And thank you :)
Ehud
On the post: Federal Court Says Sanctions Are On The Way For Portland PD Over Violations Of Protest Restraining Orders
So...
What's the issue?
Police abuse the law. They ignore a judge's order. City will pay fines. People get bludgeoned and arrested (and thankfully in this case not killed).
Justice was done... right? No need to get upset, right?
E
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Darn Jews
I think you missed my point. That's ok :)
Ehud
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Darn Jews
"No upright fundamental Christian would admit to letting himself get bossed around by a Jew."
No upright fundamental pro-life fascist would allow the elimination of any life (which begins with the first toast at the bar) at all.
But if someone is on death row, hey, bring out the firing squad, and shoot their asses dead. Immediately. Cancel all these automatic appeals. Appellate courts and the SCOTUS have important things to do so no time to deal with PIDDLY things like human lives.
Just kill them all. Let God sort it out. Just not pre-born babies.
Ehud
P.S. I hear tell Jesus was a Jew. I guess he didn't get converted to Christianity before the Romans killed him. Not going to win any friends going further with this thread... but which hell or heaven is he in?
On the post: Nikola's Bad Quarter: Company's Deal For General Motors Ownership Stake Goes Sideways
Nikola failure is its reward for being... a failure
Tim, good analysis. I would like to differ with:
A company with no products, no customers, and a business plan built on saying "Hey, check out what others in the market are doing! We'll do it too! And better! Can we get another round of financing?" wasn't destined for the acme of success.
Their video was great. Yes, the semi tractor-trailer had no engine or transmission or power cell and was going downhill, but great video. The problem is they lied to investors (SEC investigation forthcoming, I'm guessing) and they lied to potential business partners (GM).
One can say "Blockchain, Crypto, Bitcoin, Emissions Free, Green Carbon Neutral" all day long... but to get the funding one has to show their work. Nikola did not show their work... mostly, I guess, because they didn't do the work.
I've said "I guess" and "I'm guessing" twice, so consider this my opinion, but -- as in all cases involving this much money being wasted on executive salaries and faked truck movie runs -- the truth will come out.
If any TDers invested in Nikola... please share your experience. 2020 is the year that keeps on giving...
Ehud
On the post: Poland's Bid To Get Upload Filters Taken Out Of The EU Copyright Directive Suddenly Looks Much More Hopeful
Automated content-based filters and Mr. Øe
TD has covered this ad nauseum. Content-based filters don't properly understand the nuances of content, context, means, method, and purpose. In the name of copyright (see Disney thread) and other reasons the ideas are geared to one-sided censorship (which CJEU is clearly against) and not to protecting people's rights to use the Internet.
The Internet is not a magic carpet. It's a communication medium. Add in the "cloud" (amorphous "we don't know what it is so we drew it as a cloud") and it's a storage medium as well. Neither should be subject to these content-based restrictions.
OB BS: Think of the children. Sure, don't upload child porn to Google Drive. Got it. But now that we've deal with the children, the rest of content should be protected.
OB Anecdotal: If I 'get' 1TB "cloud" storage from Google Drive and I choose to sync my files to it, I ought to be able to... you know... sync my files to it. If one is named star.wars.episode.1.mkv so be it. But what if I rename it -- no worries, the EU wants Google to hash my file and figure out it's still the Star Wars movie. What if I change the last byte of the movie to 0xFF? Fingerprinting will take care of that. What if I have every 5th frame modified? Maybe another method will solve that for them. What if I JUST ENCRYPT IT? LEOs want a back door so that the encryption can be broken... and you can bet if they get it, they WILL expect online service providers to use the same back door to decrypt files and check the same. Again, we the users get it up the back door.
In the pre-"DMCA is right and everyone should follow our lead on this" world (1993-2000) the Internet flourished. Now, restrictions are piling on day by day.
Do you like your Freedom Of Speech™? Just apply to the EU Ministry of Free Speech for your License to Speak first, and include all content you intend to provide. You may not deviate from this content -- if approved. An approval may come within 30-60 days. Fees will apply. Have a nice day.
Ehud
P.S. How does one properly pronounce "Øe"?
On the post: Disney (Disney!) Accused Of Trying To Lawyer Its Way Out Of Paying Royalties To Alan Dean Foster
Buying real-estate
When you buy a house, or a car, or a plane, or a boat, or any real-estate, the transaction is a one-time deal, so you pay, buyer gets paid, brokers make money, and all is good.
If you want to equate real-estate with copyright residuals you could try "rental property." Someone owns rental property. You sign a lease. You pay monthly. You get to stay there. If you quit paying, you are out of there.
Except there are two important differences that make that an unfortunately bad analogy. 1) With copyright you don't "live there" so you can't be "thrown out". 2) If the owner sells the house the seller is supposed to assume the obligations (i.e. "honor the lease") but YOU are not a party to that agreement. So they may choose to throw you out, but YOUR agreement with old-owner is still in force.
Of course without seeing the contract transferring copyright and providing for residuals [and I am not a lawyer] I won't opine further on the specifics.
Hollywood has a reputation, and the music studios do too, and TD has covered it quite extensively. Is it POSSIBLE that in this ONE CASE they did the artist (ADF) a solid and "it just didn't work out; lose my number"? Sure, it's possible.
It's more likely they shuffled assets and are bluffing. He needs a good legal team (Disney can't be shamed into "doing the right thing"... they're a publicly traded corporation started by an anti-semite racist ruthless businessman who wanted to prey on children).
Even if ADF did get a great legal team would this stop Disney from doing this to other artists (and it's more than just authors... think music composers, set designers, etc.). Disney can hire as many lawyers as Donald can, and create more legal noise, until any rational brain will overload and crash.
The legal nuance of being able to sell the copyright but not the requirement to provide the residuals... isn't "baffling"... it's "blatant conversion". That gets proven in front of a jury.
E
Next >>