"Your assumption is that the original author (or rights holder) want money - they don't."
Under the law, what the person subjectively wants does not suddenly make it irreparable harm.
"This is very simply building on top of someone else's work, attempting to profit from the head start"
Being influenced by and building off of other copyrighted works is perfectly legal. Please show me one completely original hit song, book, or movie that did not build off of someone else's work.
"Therefore, if the book is allowed to be published, it could cause irreparable harm on the value of their asset, as well as damaging and limiting future use of the characters by the original author."
You're assuming your conclusions. Exactly how would Salinger be irreparably harmed? Would his arm be broken? Would he lose 10 pounds? Explain the specific harm.
Exactly how would the publication of this book limit the "future use of the characters by the original author." I don't get that at all. Salinger is perfectly free to do as he pleases with the characters.
A restraining order can only be granted when there is irreparable harm. The judge in this case erroneously found irreparable harm. However, any situation that can be solved with monetary damages cannot be irreparable harm. An example of irreparable harm might involve real property. The destruction of real property cannot be solved with monetary damages because, under the law, real property is unique. Another example might involve someone's life, which again is unique.
What the judge should have done is denied the request for a retraining order, let the book be sold, and let the authors fight it out for monetary damages. That solution doesn't shit on the first amendment and lets Salinger recover any damages he's entitled to.
"It's difficult to see how it makes sense to enforce the lower price"
I'm with the regulators here. If Dell made mistake on its website and when consumers tried to buy were told, "Ooops, it's a mistake, sorry." I'd agree with you.
But if the consumers are able to complete the sale and obtain a confirmation that the sale went through, then I see no basis to allow Dell to back out.
The problem is, when it's a mistake to the detriment of a large corporation, the corporation wins. But when the detriment is to the little guy, like the guy who dares to turn on his iPhone in Canada and gets a bill for several thousand dollars, the corporation still wins.
I was thinking the same thing. Unless the settlement is that she would pay 24 bucks and the RIAA would pay her attorney fees, I probably wouldn't settle either.
Let's face it, unless someone else pays her attorney fees, she's probably going to have to declare bankruptcy anyway. So there's no real point in settling.
I'm having trouble understanding how a private profile of an 11 year old boy could be news. His claim to fame is that he tried to give flower to a celebrity, but she was too busy to notice.
No, that's not his claim to fame. That sort of stuff happens every day. His claim to fame is that someone video taped it and it went viral.
If the 11 year old boy had attempted to kill a celebrity, his personal profile might be newsworthy. But I see nothing that the public has a right to know relating to this complete non-incident.
Throughout history old people have complained about whatever "thing" young people are doing. Plato complained about kids reading. Parents in the 20s complained about jazz music. Parents in the 50s complained about rock & roll. Parents complained about hair length (both too long and too sort), comic books, tree forts, toys, and nearly everything else they have did or do.
Every generation of parents complains and this will never stop. For this generation it's video games. For the next generation it'll be something else.
Two? Don't forget the copyright on the arraignment. Because most bands do their own arraigning this is not a big issue nowadays, but back a few decades ago it was big business.
"Overall, the Supreme Court generally understands copyright."
That may be true, but from the tortured mess you wrote, it's quite clear that you understand absolutely nothing about copyright. God, what ignorant tripe!
Yeah, because we all know that the Saudis who are financing Islamic terrorism don't make enough money from oil, so they have to download, burn, and sell Brittany Spears CDs to make ends meet. The poor guys. I almost feel sorry for them.
"the Supreme Court seems to do such a good job with patent law, but gets totally twisted around when it comes to copyright law."
I think it has to do with the fact that the monopoly granted by copyrights lasts so long that people don't even recognize that copyright monopolies are supposed to end, and furthermore, they tend to view copyright as a property right, along with the same emotional connotations.
However, while the terms granted to patents have been extended slightly over the years, the terms are still limited. In our minds, patents are not emotionally equated with property rights as copyrights currently are.
And it also might be because patents are generally useful processes that we intuitively recognize should not be locked up forever minus a day.
What we have to do is get people to view copyrights in the same pragmatic light that we view patents.
This would be a topic for an interesting paper, why the monopolies associated with patents and copyrights took such different paths.
"the recording industry must appear to be treating artists and fans fairly, and legislators must appear to be acting in the public interest"
The use of the nonsense word "appear" destroys it for me. It makes the entire argument/story meaningless. In other words, he's admitting that the recording industry does not have to actually treat artists and fans fairly or that legislator must actually act in the public interest. He'd admitting the entire story is a charade.
With the speed at which news travel, it's much more difficult for the powers to be to outright lie as is suggested by this paper.
"It was really about the evils of technology such as television"
That's the interpretation I was taught in high school, way back in late the 70s. My teacher stressed again and again that Bradbury was not arguing against any sort of censorship of ideas, but against how technology trivializes ideas, to the point where ideas have no meaning.
To put it another way, the government in Farenheit 451 did not censor books because the ideas were dangerous, the people of Farenheit 451 wanted books banned because they were conditioned by technology to find the discussion of real ideas to be unpleasant.
On the post: Fact Checking? Reporter Claims It Costs $27 To Use The Pirate Bay
Re: $27
On the post: District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?
Re: Re:
Under the law, what the person subjectively wants does not suddenly make it irreparable harm.
"This is very simply building on top of someone else's work, attempting to profit from the head start"
Being influenced by and building off of other copyrighted works is perfectly legal. Please show me one completely original hit song, book, or movie that did not build off of someone else's work.
"Therefore, if the book is allowed to be published, it could cause irreparable harm on the value of their asset, as well as damaging and limiting future use of the characters by the original author."
You're assuming your conclusions. Exactly how would Salinger be irreparably harmed? Would his arm be broken? Would he lose 10 pounds? Explain the specific harm.
Exactly how would the publication of this book limit the "future use of the characters by the original author." I don't get that at all. Salinger is perfectly free to do as he pleases with the characters.
On the post: District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?
A restraining order can only be granted when there is irreparable harm. The judge in this case erroneously found irreparable harm. However, any situation that can be solved with monetary damages cannot be irreparable harm. An example of irreparable harm might involve real property. The destruction of real property cannot be solved with monetary damages because, under the law, real property is unique. Another example might involve someone's life, which again is unique.
What the judge should have done is denied the request for a retraining order, let the book be sold, and let the authors fight it out for monetary damages. That solution doesn't shit on the first amendment and lets Salinger recover any damages he's entitled to.
On the post: District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?
You've written before about the problem with copyright law contradicting the free speech rights given by the first amendment. This is a perfect example of that problem. I'm surprised you didn't relate back to that.
On the post: Taiwan Regulators Tell Dell It Must Sell Mispriced Monitors At $15
I'm with the regulators here. If Dell made mistake on its website and when consumers tried to buy were told, "Ooops, it's a mistake, sorry." I'd agree with you.
But if the consumers are able to complete the sale and obtain a confirmation that the sale went through, then I see no basis to allow Dell to back out.
The problem is, when it's a mistake to the detriment of a large corporation, the corporation wins. But when the detriment is to the little guy, like the guy who dares to turn on his iPhone in Canada and gets a bill for several thousand dollars, the corporation still wins.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Not Willing To Settle Yet... Acccording To The RIAA
Re: Why Not..
Let's face it, unless someone else pays her attorney fees, she's probably going to have to declare bankruptcy anyway. So there's no real point in settling.
On the post: News? Or A Violation Of Privacy?
No, that's not his claim to fame. That sort of stuff happens every day. His claim to fame is that someone video taped it and it went viral.
If the 11 year old boy had attempted to kill a celebrity, his personal profile might be newsworthy. But I see nothing that the public has a right to know relating to this complete non-incident.
On the post: Forget Video Games, Why Aren't Politicians Complaining About Chess?
Every generation of parents complains and this will never stop. For this generation it's video games. For the next generation it'll be something else.
On the post: Microsoft, Yahoo And Real Sued For Failing To Get All Necessary Licenses For Music Stores
Re: What is confusing?
On the post: Microsoft, Yahoo And Real Sued For Failing To Get All Necessary Licenses For Music Stores
On the post: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Cablevision Remote DVR Case: Good News, For Now
Re: Re: Re: Re: supreme court and copyright law
That may be true, but from the tortured mess you wrote, it's quite clear that you understand absolutely nothing about copyright. God, what ignorant tripe!
On the post: Australian Press Prints Movie Industry Myths About Piracy Funding Terrorism
On the post: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Cablevision Remote DVR Case: Good News, For Now
Re: supreme court and copyright law
You're forgetting the awful Eldred v. Ashcroft decision.
On the post: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Cablevision Remote DVR Case: Good News, For Now
I think it has to do with the fact that the monopoly granted by copyrights lasts so long that people don't even recognize that copyright monopolies are supposed to end, and furthermore, they tend to view copyright as a property right, along with the same emotional connotations.
However, while the terms granted to patents have been extended slightly over the years, the terms are still limited. In our minds, patents are not emotionally equated with property rights as copyrights currently are.
And it also might be because patents are generally useful processes that we intuitively recognize should not be locked up forever minus a day.
What we have to do is get people to view copyrights in the same pragmatic light that we view patents.
This would be a topic for an interesting paper, why the monopolies associated with patents and copyrights took such different paths.
On the post: Could The RIAA Stop Piracy By Coming Up With A More Compelling Story?
Re: Re:
Where's L. Ron Hubbard when you need him?!
On the post: Could The RIAA Stop Piracy By Coming Up With A More Compelling Story?
Re: Re:
Close. The point is that people have to actually believe the story, whether or not it's actually true.
On the post: Could The RIAA Stop Piracy By Coming Up With A More Compelling Story?
The use of the nonsense word "appear" destroys it for me. It makes the entire argument/story meaningless. In other words, he's admitting that the recording industry does not have to actually treat artists and fans fairly or that legislator must actually act in the public interest. He'd admitting the entire story is a charade.
With the speed at which news travel, it's much more difficult for the powers to be to outright lie as is suggested by this paper.
On the post: Judge Posner Recommends Extending Copyright Law To Protect Newspapers
On the post: Amanda Palmer Connects With Fans, Gives 'Em A Reason To Buy... And Makes $19k In 10 Hours
While it may be "good," it's also unreadable because Palmer has the writing skills of an 11 year old girl.
On the post: Ray Bradbury Still Hates The Internet
That's the interpretation I was taught in high school, way back in late the 70s. My teacher stressed again and again that Bradbury was not arguing against any sort of censorship of ideas, but against how technology trivializes ideas, to the point where ideas have no meaning.
To put it another way, the government in Farenheit 451 did not censor books because the ideas were dangerous, the people of Farenheit 451 wanted books banned because they were conditioned by technology to find the discussion of real ideas to be unpleasant.
Next >>