Well, technically, the rogue websites that sell rat poison as aspirin are not infringing on the pharama's formula IP. Unless they also put rat poison in their pills.
It's called PROTECT IP for god's sake! If it was about protecting consumers from fake pharma it would be called PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM LEAD IN PILLS YOU BUY ONLINE. (a gold star to anyone who can come up with a good retronym for this)
I'm suing them. They are using my likeness in so many ways. They have 2 eyes, a mouth, 2 hands, 2 feet, 2 legs, a liver, a pancreas etc... The similarities are endless! The biggest difference is that I am much hotter. Also, I'm a guy, but who cares? I just want money.
OK, let's talk to that woman. Maybe we can convince that she is being horribly manipulated. The CoC is acting in a horrendous manner. Let's make sure this blows up in her face. I found her snail-mail address and her phone number. Who wants to get in on drafting a letter? (If anyone can help find her email, that would be nice) She is an independent childcare worker. She is a member of the "Mayor Council".
I must admit I'm confused. If I was going to sell fake drugs, I would sell sugar pills. It seems really absurd to put things like lead and other relatively expensive heavy metals in fake drugs. Am I missing something?
I think the first quote is sensible. I mean, we can't expect a rag like News of the World to abide by ethical standards. So it's disturbing that they went that far, but not unexpected. I mean, monkeys throw poo. It's unfortunate, but not unexpected. On the other hand, the police officers who failed to act are expected to act professionally. They should have sent a SWAT team to bust down the door, arrested the News of the World staff, detained them incommunicado under anti-terrorism statutes and deported them to be tortured in secret prisons. That's what we have a right to expect from law enforcement.
I never understood the whole: "driving is not a right, it is a privilege" line. The whole concept of liberty is that we have the right to do whatever we want until the government provides a compelling reason to restrict that right or the DMV says otherwise. Oh, I see how it works... Sorry, I get it now.
I don't know if you read French. I do and what it says is not that they should remove "the data". It specifies: "tous les articles, photographies, et representations graphiques". This translates to "All articles, photos and graphical representations". Links are not included. Now, Google does have a point that they could legitimately fear the snippet under the search result or even the link being the target of another lawsuit. (which is basically what they said) But it's not the same thing as saying that the court specifically required that "all the data" be removed from its servers.
Well, reading the court order, it enumerates articles, pictures and graphical representations as the things that need to be removed. Links don't appear to be mentioned.
Most likely if you work with a photographer to setup and take a shot, you will jointly own the copyright. In practice it doesn't matter because most likely you have a contract that says who owns the copyright. But, this is not what happened here. Here, someone left a camera unattended, a bunch of monkeys played with it and in the process pictures were taken. The sum total creative participation of the camera owner is very close to 0. (Even if he did do it on purpose) So, if they were humans, the government monkeys would own the picture. But they are not, so the picture is not covered by copyright.
Also, let's remember what the argument is which grants photographers copyright. It is that they setup the shot choosing angles, lighting etc... Here, the government monkeys clearly were responsible for all those elements. At best, Mr. Slate owns the copyright to a performance piece which involves leaving a camera for government monkeys to play with. (By modern standards, that's probably "art") Since he's not the first to do that (hey, I did it years ago, but the government monkeys did not return the camera) he doesn't own the copyright on that.
Shutting up the ratings agencies wouldn't change a thing for those countries. Investors (especially sophisticated investors) look at the same signals as the ratings agencies. So if a country was going to be downgraded but instead the ratings agencies are told to shut their mouths, the institutional investors will do the research themselves, pull their money out and then everyone else will know that the country's debt is bad. The ratings agencies are useful because they effectively provide research to smaller investors who don't have the money to run their own research departments. They also provide a certain amount of standardization across the industry which is very useful.
"Neal May Says:
July 13th, 2011 at 10:57 am
I, along with the other four people who agreed with you in the last 8 days, feel that these free people just can’t grasp that I would never produce any art unless someone was handing me a dollar for my work. What is the point of doing art if I won’t get paid for it? They are so worried about free speech, but what about my right to be paid money endlessly for creating something one time with the expectation to be set for life from my weeks work of creativity? If they want art for free then they should make it themselves and be sure not to copy true artists. They can enjoy their sub-par art for free. I would rather live in obscurity and nobody own my art than for someone get it for free and gain notoriety for my skills. Keep up the fight…’til the death!"
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement
Re:
On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her
On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her
Re: Re:
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement
http://www.reinbeck.org/govt/officials.html
I started a google docs letter. Post your gmail username here and I will share with you.
PS: I swear, if you go off and prank/lulz her you are a counterproductive idiot.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement
On the post: WSJ's Defense Of News Of The World: Hey, It's Not Like They Published Wikileaks Secrets
On the post: The Failures Of Facial Recognition Software: Drivers Losing Licenses For Looking Like Terrorists
On the post: Newspapers Win Suit Against Google, Get Their Wish To Be Delisted, Then Complain
Re: they asked for it.
On the post: Newspapers Win Suit Against Google, Get Their Wish To Be Delisted, Then Complain
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Also, let's remember what the argument is which grants photographers copyright. It is that they setup the shot choosing angles, lighting etc... Here, the government monkeys clearly were responsible for all those elements. At best, Mr. Slate owns the copyright to a performance piece which involves leaving a camera for government monkeys to play with. (By modern standards, that's probably "art") Since he's not the first to do that (hey, I did it years ago, but the government monkeys did not return the camera) he doesn't own the copyright on that.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re:
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
On the post: EU Considers Banning Ratings Agencies From Warning That Countries May Be In Financial Trouble
Re:
On the post: Billboard Apparently Unable To Hire Its Own Writers For Copycat Conference; So Just Copies Text From Others
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Comment thread hijack
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re:
"Neal May Says:
July 13th, 2011 at 10:57 am
I, along with the other four people who agreed with you in the last 8 days, feel that these free people just can’t grasp that I would never produce any art unless someone was handing me a dollar for my work. What is the point of doing art if I won’t get paid for it? They are so worried about free speech, but what about my right to be paid money endlessly for creating something one time with the expectation to be set for life from my weeks work of creativity? If they want art for free then they should make it themselves and be sure not to copy true artists. They can enjoy their sub-par art for free. I would rather live in obscurity and nobody own my art than for someone get it for free and gain notoriety for my skills. Keep up the fight…’til the death!"
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Next >>