You keep saying that when we're discussing copyright rulings, but why not when we're discussing something else? Just because you only pick on the legal discussions doesn't a law blog make.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about it in the real world for a second.
There is no duty. You're suggesting they do the police's job. Granted, if I were running the business and I came across specific knowledge I would likely turn that knowledge over to the police. THAT is their specific duty.
To put it bluntly? Fuck the industry. It isn't our job to fix this shit for them. They got themselves into the mess, they can get themselves out. Or die. The latter is preferable. And yes, we mean the recording industry. The music industry is doing just fine.
Re: Re: Re: Perfect example of your "business model problem"
OotB is just a troll. It may or may not understand what is being discussed, but it often doesn't matter as it continues to try and shout down 'The Masnick.' If it ever had a valid point, it might be worth replying to, but it does not.
Yep, it's perfectly okay. Trademark law covers a very narrow range, and unless the business in question has a copyright on the name, chances are a restaurant will not have a trademark covering use in music.
Well, maybe blame the original article instead of the discussion blog post? Or you can go looking if someone posted a copy. Looking about I cannot find one, either, so it's possible that, if it exists, they didn't put it out for public dissemination.
Re: Re: Re: "Advertising is content is advertising" pitfall
The ones in our city are very nice and clean. The griddle practically shines, and they are always cleaning. Dunno, I'd say it speaks more about the people that work in your area's restaurants.
Page 6 of the linked document. From 2009, before they'd even verified that BMI music was being played on the premises. The tone of the letter, and the WORDS, threaten lawsuit unless they get a license.
How do you respond to them collecting royalties on songs from non-members, who they should NOT have the right to collect on? If they collect, then need to pass it on to the artist, regardless if they are a member or not. Otherwise, it should be fraudulent behavior and treated as such.
Obscenity laws are still being challenged to this day. I can wear a shirt that says 'Fuck you right up your motherfucking ass' and the cops really can't do much about it in most situations. In places with obscenity laws, I will gladly, and loudly, defend my rights. You don't have an intrinsic right to not be offended.
No, I'm arguing that shutting something down for what you seem to think are reasonable compromises should never be considered without there being proof that something HAS HAPPENED ALREADY. Just because something bad COULD happen is no reason to cut communications. That is pretty much the essence of prior restraint as I've come to understand it.
In a court filing on Monday, attorneys for Facebook said an authentic contract was found embedded in electronic data on Ceglia's computer but that document mentions only another company, StreetFax.
Everything ever written is written through the lens of one's own bias. The fact that you think calling Mike out for his own biases also shows us your own.
On the post: Is Talking About The Beatles As A Wonderful 'Shared Experience' Really Wise In An Anti-Piracy PSA?
Re: Re: You're a poet, TC
On the post: Judge Slams Photographer For Bogus Copyright Lawsuit: Says Use Some Common Sense, Points Out 'Utter Lack Of Similarity'
Re:
On the post: As Expected, Backpage Is Not Liable For Prostitution Ads
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think about it in the real world for a second.
On the post: US Court Tells Brazilian Court To Stop Ruling On Copyright Issue That It Wants To Rule On First
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Offering Solutions Rather Than Criticism
Re: So let's have your solutions!
On the post: First Year Associate Fired After Telling Partners He Had A 'Superior Legal Mind' Sues Firm For $77 Million
Re: Do it yourself...
On the post: Ubisoft Removes 'Always On' DRM From New Driver Game; Replaces It With Something Slightly Less Annoying
Re: Re: Re: Perfect example of your "business model problem"
On the post: CBO Says PROTECT IP Will Cost Taxpayers Over $10 Million Per Year To Censor The Internet
Re: Re: Only slightly maybe sorta off-topic
On the post: CBO Says PROTECT IP Will Cost Taxpayers Over $10 Million Per Year To Censor The Internet
Only slightly maybe sorta off-topic
On the post: US Court Tells Brazilian Court To Stop Ruling On Copyright Issue That It Wants To Rule On First
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Waffle House Says Rap Song Called Waffle House Violates Its Trademark
Re: Wo-Ho
On the post: Waffle House Says Rap Song Called Waffle House Violates Its Trademark
Re:
On the post: Waffle House Says Rap Song Called Waffle House Violates Its Trademark
Re: Re: Re: "Advertising is content is advertising" pitfall
On the post: Restaurant Owner Ordered To Pay BMI $30,450 For 'Illegally Playing' Four Unlicensed Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Restaurant Owner Ordered To Pay BMI $30,450 For 'Illegally Playing' Four Unlicensed Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Original Contract Used By Paul Ceglia To Claim Facebook Ownership... Doesn't Mention Facebook
Re: Who doctored what
In a court filing on Monday, attorneys for Facebook said an authentic contract was found embedded in electronic data on Ceglia's computer but that document mentions only another company, StreetFax.
On the post: Can't Stop Social Media-Driven UK Riots? Go After Social Media-Driven Water Gun Fights
Re: Re: Get advance notice on upcoming Techdirt posts!
On the post: Dear Musicians: The RIAA Is About To Totally Screw You Over (Again!)
Re: Re:
Next >>