The reversion clause is what really shows it as a scam. Basically, Righthaven can only sue. They must share the proceeds of a lawsuit with Stephens Media. Righthaven cannot exploit any of the exclusive rights of the copyright (only Stephens Media, the original copyright owner, can). And Stephans Media can revoke the deal and the copyright can revert to their "ownership" at their leisure (basically after the lawsuit).
Didn't it just come out that Righthaven was not the actual owner of the copyright? (See EFF's revelation that the assignment was a legal sham.) The right to sue is not a valid assignment of a copyright (Stephens Media retained all the exclusive rights of the copyright).
I am with you. I don't understand the rationale behind "paying more" to see it earlier. Ok, at least in theaters you are getting something value added (I don't have a big TV or a kickass sound system). You buy it on Blueray for $30 bucks: you wait a little longer, you get to keep it longer than 2 days and can watch it as many times as you want/lend it to friends and have the same quality you get on demand (or better). Versus paying $30 for a 2-day rental a few weeks earlier than it comes out on blueray.
I am convinced that no one at the studios has used Netflix or understand how it works. This new "windowing" scheme totally misses the point. You put movies into a queue on Netflix and you receive them in the order they are on your queue. It is not unusual for my queue to be 25-35 movies long, with a mix of newer movies and oldies-but-goodies. When a movie that I want to see is out of the theater (usually don't have the time/money to see it in the theater), I just put it in my queue at the end. You can even queue it before the movie is out on DVD. When it arrives, I watch it. Until then, I have plenty of other movies to watch. Sometimes I don't look at my queue for a while and am pleasantly surprised when a movie shows up.
In my mind, this setup totally destroys the idea of windowing. I don't need to see it right now (if I did, I would go to theaters). I can wait and enjoy the other movies I want to watch in the meantime.
Talk about starting the doctor patient relationship on a bad foot. If something happened at one of those doctors, I would certainly sue instead of just writing a bad review. There would be nothing except large wadges of cash that would placate my thirst for blood at that point.
Plus, what is to stop someone from seeing the copyright assignment clause, walking out and then writing a bad review?
They will never learn because the public has a collective action problem. People endure the abuse because other methods take longer. This does not mean the abuse is justified. For a lot of people, cars and trains (and boats) really are not a viable option. We need to actively resist the government action until we can solve the collective action problem.
This sort of logic is asinine. "If you won't like your government repressing its citizens, then just look away."
This is about the TSA's security theater. Even if there was a fool-proof method of stopping all terrorist threats, I doubt the TSA is smart enough to find them and then use them properly. The current methods did not get put in place because people thought they were effective. They got put in place because some companies with lots of high profile lobbyists (such as Micheal Chernof) with a lot of cash got the TSA to adopt these measures.
Re: I still don't understand why they don't go after the source
Its all money and ease. It would be easier and more profitable to use one rich target like Google instead on a lot of no-so-rich targets like the individual sites.
The RIAA rep. probably talked some assistant US district attorney into pursuing criminal copyright infringement. This would allow investigation without tipping off the potential defendant (getting over the pesky apart of a civil suit which is that you have to actually tell a defendant that you are suing them before you do discovery).
Communal rights might be recognized in a copyright system based on moral rights. However, those rights would probably not be recognized in a copyright system based on the utilitarian concept of progress.
I am not convinced that they should be recognized, though I am open to hearing more arguments for their recognition. To stop someone from wearing a certain tattoo would suppress their freedom of expression. There are different tools other than using the power of the government to restrict those forms of expression that you might find offensive (shaming, social norms and mores, etc).
Trademark does not seems to fit either. Trademarks identify the source of a good in commerce and help protect the reputation of the maker of those goods. I am not what could be considered a good in this case.
I am continually amazed at Righthaven's attempts to portray themselves as the victim. This notice of voluntary dismissal could be paraphrased like this:
"We wanted to extort a few dollars from the defendant and the defendant played along. It is unfair that the defendant then turned around and tried to use the court to pursue justice in this case, catching us with our pants down. Everyone else reading this, don't think we will be so thin-skinned or incompetent in the next case."
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Exclusive rights
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re: Re: Righthaven Defies Court, Ignores Domain Name Ruling
On the post: Another Judge Slams Righthaven For Chilling Effects That Do Nothing To Advance Copyright Act's Purpose
Re:
On the post: Prince Claims When Someone Covers Your Song, The Original No Longer Exists
Re: Good riddance
On the post: Studios Offering $30 Movie Rentals; Theater Owner Complains That He Can't Compete With That
Re: Re: Re: Lame experience
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
On the post: Studios Offering $30 Movie Rentals; Theater Owner Complains That He Can't Compete With That
Re: Lame experience
On the post: Studios Offering $30 Movie Rentals; Theater Owner Complains That He Can't Compete With That
Studios don't understand Netflix
In my mind, this setup totally destroys the idea of windowing. I don't need to see it right now (if I did, I would go to theaters). I can wait and enjoy the other movies I want to watch in the meantime.
On the post: Hugh Grant: Investigative Reporter
On the post: Why Doctors Shouldn't Abuse Copyright Law To Stop Patient Reviews
Plus, what is to stop someone from seeing the copyright assignment clause, walking out and then writing a bad review?
On the post: TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
Re: Re:
On the post: TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
Re:
This is about the TSA's security theater. Even if there was a fool-proof method of stopping all terrorist threats, I doubt the TSA is smart enough to find them and then use them properly. The current methods did not get put in place because people thought they were effective. They got put in place because some companies with lots of high profile lobbyists (such as Micheal Chernof) with a lot of cash got the TSA to adopt these measures.
On the post: New Zealand Uses Earthquake As An Excuse To Sneak 3 Strikes Law Through
Re: I still don't understand why they don't go after the source
On the post: New Zealand Uses Earthquake As An Excuse To Sneak 3 Strikes Law Through
Re: How?...
On the post: Why Are Police Going After Mixtapes... And Why Are They Bringing Along RIAA Reps?
On the post: Who Owns The Copyright On A Tattoo?
Re: Re: Re: From Another Angle
I am not convinced that they should be recognized, though I am open to hearing more arguments for their recognition. To stop someone from wearing a certain tattoo would suppress their freedom of expression. There are different tools other than using the power of the government to restrict those forms of expression that you might find offensive (shaming, social norms and mores, etc).
On the post: Who Owns The Copyright On A Tattoo?
Re: Re: Re: Re: From Another Angle
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
"We wanted to extort a few dollars from the defendant and the defendant played along. It is unfair that the defendant then turned around and tried to use the court to pursue justice in this case, catching us with our pants down. Everyone else reading this, don't think we will be so thin-skinned or incompetent in the next case."
Next >>