I certainly wouldn't have. If I saw a $5 charge, I'm not sure I would have even gone to the trouble of protesting it, unless it reoccurred -- I likely would have written it off as a charge I didn't remember. If it was something like $.25, I definitely wouldn't have bothered. Kind of a smart move -- taking tiny amounts from multiple people a single time rather than the same person/place a single time. Obviously not smart enough, though.
First, just because someone believes a judge's interpretation of a law doesn't mean that person is implying the judge is irresponsibly biased. He's saying Judge Davis may have an interpretation of patent law that is not constructive for our society on a whole. That doesn't necessarily make him a bad judge -- it's far more likely that law is written in a bad way.
Second, can you provide a link to the data to which you refer? It seems strange that so many patent horders would go to the trouble of filing in that district if it wasn't beneficial.
Um, I would say the vast majority of people who cook are not "top French chefs." Yes, someone who has made 10,000 different cakes can probably assemble one with just a list of ingredients, the same way a master carpenter could make a desk from a list that just says "wood." The rest of us are happy for the additional instructions, thanks.
I tend to agree, actually. The law says that using someone's logo is okay if you're parodying them, but you can't use someone else's IP to parody something else. This album cover certainly doesn't seem to be parodying Daily Variety in any way. That doesn't speak to this specific lawsuit, however, since the band did indeed cease and desist; Variety doesn't seem to have a case. You can't go back and change the past, you can only stop infringing in the future.
Of course, that's the law, not the morality. In a just society, they *would* be able to use that logo with no problems.
That's a very loose definition of "channel." In fact, these PPV "channels" just show the same movie all day, week, month, so it's hard to call that a channel.
Either way, even if this could be categorized as not lying, it's certainly misleading.
Agreed, this is stupid. It'd be much better to build a community around free content, and then monetize the community (by offering extra incentives, not by locking the community by a paywall five years down the line).
To the WSJ columnists, the only thing that can make any real change is a giant corporation working in the inherently efficient and benevolent free market! That, and Republican administrations, of course.
I'm usually with you Mike, but not in this case. This differs from mixtapes or remixes in a few fundamental ways -- first, that the "author" made a boatload of cash off of it, and second, that they made no attributions or citations.
The first one is just sort of irritating, but not that big of a deal. The second part is the worst, and it's the same reason I refuse to read any of Cassandra Claire's work. Remix culture is fine with me, but when you lift passages and put your own name on them, you're passing that work off as your own. That's not even a matter of copyright -- even if strict copyright didn't exist, that would be illegal. So, no, regardless of how much talent it took to "remix" those passages, I'm not really down with it. Next time she should put in a "Works Cited" page, just like mixtape makers do when they have tracklists.
I could have sworn that titles are not eligible for copyright, which is why you can write a book that mentions "$Character broke out into a few chords of 'Hey Jude.'" But I guess if he actually sang the title to the tune of the song, that's enough to damn him.
What I don't understand is how Amazon was able to successfully shake up the digital music world, Apple's hometurf, by offering lower prices and non-DRM'd files, but seems to be unable to do so in the eBook market, which is where you'd think they'd be the strongest.
I think Amazon should find loopholes to get around this, personally. Let the idiot publishers offer their books for $15, but offer an easily accessible "$5 off any eBook priced $14.99 or higher" coupon.
If you stopped Google from running, you'd be squashing its free speech rights. 34-year-old companies have a right to espousing their opinion by running for president too!
On the post: Scammers Actually Got Away With Millions Of Microtransactions Scam
Re: I balanace my cards religiously
On the post: Scammers Actually Got Away With Millions Of Microtransactions Scam
Re: really
On the post: Newspapers Having Trouble Reporting On Their Own Paywalls
Re: SeeeYaaa....Won't miss ya...
On the post: Do People Really Think Best Buy's Retread Of CinemaNow Will Eat Into Netflix And Blockbuster?
To be fair...
On the post: Here's A Surprise: Red Hat Wins Patent Lawsuit In East Texas
Re: Re: Re: A Daniel Come to Judgment.
Second, can you provide a link to the data to which you refer? It seems strange that so many patent horders would go to the trouble of filing in that district if it wasn't beneficial.
On the post: Once Again, You Cannot Copyright The Idea Of Sneaking Veggies Into Kids Food
Re: Re: Learn to cook...
On the post: Reed Elsevier Sues Punk Band Over Parody Logo That Was Discontinued Years Ago
Re:
Of course, that's the law, not the morality. In a just society, they *would* be able to use that logo with no problems.
On the post: Dish Network Lies About Having 200 HD Channels, Hopes Nobody Notices
Re: Re: Re:
Either way, even if this could be categorized as not lying, it's certainly misleading.
On the post: How Engaging Is An Open Public Discussion If It Costs $20 To Enter?
Re: Re:
On the post: NY Times Trashes Crowdfunding Without Looking At A Single Big Success Story
Re:
On the post: But, Wait, Whoever Said That Twitter Would Save The World?
Not surprised
On the post: Teen Remixes The Works Of Others Into Best Selling Novel... And Critics Love It
Uh, no
The first one is just sort of irritating, but not that big of a deal. The second part is the worst, and it's the same reason I refuse to read any of Cassandra Claire's work. Remix culture is fine with me, but when you lift passages and put your own name on them, you're passing that work off as your own. That's not even a matter of copyright -- even if strict copyright didn't exist, that would be illegal. So, no, regardless of how much talent it took to "remix" those passages, I'm not really down with it. Next time she should put in a "Works Cited" page, just like mixtape makers do when they have tracklists.
On the post: Teen Remixes The Works Of Others Into Best Selling Novel... And Critics Love It
Definition: critic
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webw
On the post: BioShock 2, Loaded Up With Annoying DRM That Pisses Off Fans, Cracked Immediately Anyway
Re: DRM
On the post: Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time, Because Viacom Couldn't Have Him Sing Four Words: 'We Are The World'
Seriously?
So screwed up.
On the post: Book Publishing Industry Just Now Realizing That Change Is Turbulent?
How did Amazon lose?
I think Amazon should find loopholes to get around this, personally. Let the idiot publishers offer their books for $15, but offer an easily accessible "$5 off any eBook priced $14.99 or higher" coupon.
On the post: Company Decides To Run For Congress
Re: Re: Wrong
On the post: Company Decides To Run For Congress
Wrong
On the post: Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
Re: Re:
On the post: Israeli Court Supports Anonymity For Online Commenters
Re:
Next >>