Yoo no, I don reelly like all this talk abowt Intellectual Proptery Law. It's like, "Oh, it's Intellectual, you wouldn't understand it." I think that's reelly incriminating against stoopid people.
Baloney! If any party can demonstrate an APPARENT conflict of interest, the jurist is generally advised by their local judicial handbook to recuse themself, or at the very least record a disclosure statement.
The Streisand Effect occurs when your efforts directly produce the the opposite effect, not when they simply have a negative side effect.
If the Redskins tried to suppress the coverage of this story as defamatory and their efforts to do so only got it more attention - THAT would be the Streisand effect.
Trying to get more money by hosing fans, and thereby pissing them off, and thereby getting bad press, and thereby seeing a loss in sales. That's just what it is: bad PR.
I think it's clear that when they made the purchase they had good reason to believe they could honor the contract. Additionally, it's utterly unreasonable that the terms of the contract are even legal. Any agreement can and SHOULD be able to be renegotiated or terminated for good cause. Obviously, there may need to be terms and considerations.
I would be the first to say that even if the club resold the tickets, there would be a cost of sales involved as well as however many games' revenue was lost in the intervening period. But being unconditionally on the hook for 10 seasons worth without any out, is tantamount to extortion.
YouTube's HD streams are ugly because they're streaming amateur video footage for free. A little actual cash flow comes in, and the original file is actually hi-def without lossy conversions, and your output will be just fine.
Don't think of it as upcharging for hi-def. Think of it as your hi-def regular product coming down the pipe at half the competitor's rate and then offering to half it again to let some college kids who don't mind a grainy picture to still afford beer and pizza.
Don't sign a contract if you aren't willing to go to court and defend yourself over it. These people are right that they shouldn't have to pay for double-dipping.
Unfortunately, it's like they all just decided that they shouldn't go to court over it. I feel bad for them, but if you get defaulted on something that you could've gotten out of, and some did (at least to some degree). Shame on you.
I'm pretty sure TechDirt, especially Masnick who's pretty serious about delivering on value, appreciate receiving a dead-link tip.
If you wanted to make a more helpful comment you might've suggested uwing the "Sumit a Story" link so as to tip off the same folks in a less public way. Sort of likely discreetly tapping your nose to tip a friend off to a booger.
But since it's all out there, now. BOOGERS, BOOGERS, BOOGERS!!! Sorry, it's Friday.
Dude, I think the point is that the photographer gets to copy his unique image for free and then turn around and charge him if he wants a copy of the copy of his image. Dig?
"And, indeed, what the band found out is that the contract is just as enforceable whether or not you read the contract -- and that appears to be the result online too."
The difference here is that this isn't a question of whether the contract was read or not, but whether the party even knew that the contract existed. THAT is absolutely critical to a website TOS.
Sometimes those links are at the bottom of lengthy pages where a user would never even scroll down to see them, much less know they were haphazardly jumping into an unread agreement.
There's a reason most people don't read them. Half the time, they are completely unaware of them.
On the post: Pirate Bay Appeal To Be Heard By Judge Tied To Copyright Group As Well
Re:
On the post: UK IP Minister Defends Kicking People Off The Internet, As Rockstars Come Out Against It
Re:
On the post: UK IP Minister Defends Kicking People Off The Internet, As Rockstars Come Out Against It
Re: Brand Integrity
On the post: Pirate Bay Appeal To Be Heard By Judge Tied To Copyright Group As Well
Re:
On the post: How Not To Do Things: Redskins Suing Over 100 Fans
Re: Re: Re:
If the Redskins tried to suppress the coverage of this story as defamatory and their efforts to do so only got it more attention - THAT would be the Streisand effect.
Trying to get more money by hosing fans, and thereby pissing them off, and thereby getting bad press, and thereby seeing a loss in sales. That's just what it is: bad PR.
On the post: How Not To Do Things: Redskins Suing Over 100 Fans
Re: I guess copyright law isn't good enough
I would be the first to say that even if the club resold the tickets, there would be a cost of sales involved as well as however many games' revenue was lost in the intervening period. But being unconditionally on the hook for 10 seasons worth without any out, is tantamount to extortion.
On the post: Does No One Remember That Google Tried And Failed To 'Rent' Videos Online In The Past?
Re: Re: Re: The pricing is outrageous
Don't think of it as upcharging for hi-def. Think of it as your hi-def regular product coming down the pipe at half the competitor's rate and then offering to half it again to let some college kids who don't mind a grainy picture to still afford beer and pizza.
On the post: How Not To Do Things: Redskins Suing Over 100 Fans
Re:
Unfortunately, it's like they all just decided that they shouldn't go to court over it. I feel bad for them, but if you get defaulted on something that you could've gotten out of, and some did (at least to some degree). Shame on you.
Oh yeah, and the Redskins SUCK!!
On the post: Intellectual Ventures' Patents Starting To Show Up In Lawsuits
Re:
On the post: Does No One Remember That Google Tried And Failed To 'Rent' Videos Online In The Past?
Re: The pricing is outrageous
On the post: Does No One Remember That Google Tried And Failed To 'Rent' Videos Online In The Past?
Re: RE:
I'm going to cry. 145 x 145k actual, but at least I'm paying the same as those with faster service.
*tear
On the post: Label That Embraces BitTorrent Upset About Lawsuits Against Useful Services
Re: Re: The interview Link
On the post: Label That Embraces BitTorrent Upset About Lawsuits Against Useful Services
Re: The interview Link
If you wanted to make a more helpful comment you might've suggested uwing the "Sumit a Story" link so as to tip off the same folks in a less public way. Sort of likely discreetly tapping your nose to tip a friend off to a booger.
But since it's all out there, now. BOOGERS, BOOGERS, BOOGERS!!! Sorry, it's Friday.
On the post: Understanding The Paywall Mindset In 140 Characters
Re: Re: Different products
On the post: Understanding The Paywall Mindset In 140 Characters
Re: Inuits in Barbados
You newspaper guys keep saying that!
And we keep pointing out that this is THE big error in thinking.
And you keep thinking it's just because we want everything for free.
And we keep saying no, but you DO have to give us a reason to want to buy.
On the post: Understanding The Paywall Mindset In 140 Characters
Re:
On the post: The Placebo Effect: Things Pharma Prefers You Not Worry About
Re: Re: Frak sugar pills
On the post: Hyperlinked Contract Terms Are Enforceable
Not the same thing...
The difference here is that this isn't a question of whether the contract was read or not, but whether the party even knew that the contract existed. THAT is absolutely critical to a website TOS.
Sometimes those links are at the bottom of lengthy pages where a user would never even scroll down to see them, much less know they were haphazardly jumping into an unread agreement.
There's a reason most people don't read them. Half the time, they are completely unaware of them.
On the post: Is The Copyright Royalty Board Unconstitutional?
Re: Re: Re: Patent Insight
On the post: Trying To Apply Rules Designed For Publications To... Coffee Cans?
Re:
Next >>