*sigh* Today is just chock full of "WTF! *facepalm* moments. TV Stations suing a company for copyright infringement for an automated fast forward button and their inability to adapt to the changing market. Lawmakers insisting that Google broke the law by 'wiretapping' an open wifi link, even though the relevant federal agency already said they weren't breaking the law. Microsoft filing DMCA take downs with their competitor but leaving the links up on their own search engine..
The full moon was last weekend.. what in the world is going on?
"To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" huh, maybe if the definition of "Science and the Useful Arts" means "Keep out all competitors because I don't want anyone taking my money"
This is exactly why I do NOT watch TV. At most I get 15 or 20 minutes worth of National News/Local news depending on when we sit down to eat, but otherwise I could live my life just fine without a television.
Most likely a Trademark dispute, but something tells me that since Pirate Pay is a Russian firm and getting backing from the deep pockets of Microsoft they can afford the legal battle.
Obviously the guy didn't have 100M to spend on making the movie (read: getting music licences) so there is no way the movie could make any kind of return. *nodnod*
Honestly I see this as a very safe move for the White House. They already know that changes are going to be made to it, so they can say "Yes, if the bill shows up on his desk we will recommend he veto it." Then after they make the changes the White House can say "We feel that the changes that have been made are acceptable and we will sign it if and when it makes it to his desk."
"Then, people will either wake up, grab their pitchforks, and string the Big Content fatcats up by their necks, or they'll remain cattle and always wonder why the class divide seems to get wider and wider."
Ohh.. lolbigcontentfatcats.com the next big thing on the web!
You are legally able to hang a sign that says you will refuse your service to a certain class of people. Socially you may be on the receiving end of a lot of anger from said class, but as long as you are a privately owned and operated business or individual there isn't much they can do legally.
If those all were not privately owned networks, I would agree. We very likely will see a challenge to it from the ACLU and others aligned with them, but I don't see the suits getting very far. MS, Apple, and Blizzard can all set the terms for you to use their property, if you don't like it go find a game somewhere else.
Once again, were I in charge of Google I would summarily have anything with the name or from Rosetta Stone removed from any search result Google provides.
Makes me wonder just how much leeway the Courts are going to give the prosecution and law enforcement agencies before they start dropping the Judicial Hammers.
"What is key here is that the system is two sides, and not one sided as you try to paint it. The courts, while understanding that it is to the benefit of the public, aren't so silly as to think that the benefit would come without there being a balance for the creators. That is to say that without the positive benefits to the authors and creators, there would be no benefit to the public because they might not create in the same manner."
So if this is true, then why doesn't copyright expire upon the creators death? After all a dead person doesn't need any kind of incentive to create anything besides fertilizer.
I could see the copyrights of a work made for hire under those very strict definitions of "Work for Hire" keeping their rights after the creator pass on, but please stop extending copyright length.
Also.. since companies are considered people now and monetary donations are considered speech, copyright on a work is life of the author (the company) + X years... does the copyright never expire?
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging: Promises To Subpoena Twitter & Ars Technica To Track Down Parody Account
Isn't he a lawyer? Why would he need any help, he seems to have everything in hand as is.
On the post: US Gov't Tells Developing Nations That Patents & High Prices Are Good For The Health Of Their Citizens
The full moon was last weekend.. what in the world is going on?
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
On the post: Apple And Microsoft Behind Patent Troll Armed With Thousands Of Nortel Patents
On the post: TV Network Execs Contemplate Going To Court To Say Skipping Commercials Is Illegal
Re: Re:
On the post: Microsoft-Funded BitTorrent Disruptor Won't Make Pirates Pay, But Might Break The Law
Re:
On the post: AFP Back To Claiming That Twitter's Terms Of Service Allow It To Take And Sell Anyone's Twitpic Photos
Re:
On the post: Paulo Coelho Ebook Sales Jump Way Up Thanks To $0.99 Sale
Re:
On the post: Stupidity Of Licensing Demands Means The Wrecking Crew Can't Help Sell More Music With Documentary
On the post: Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote
Re: Hey wait!
On the post: Obama Administration Threatens To Veto CISPA
On the post: Huh? Totally Clueless German Court Says ContentID Isn't Good Enough, YouTube Must Block Infringement By Keywords
Re: Re:
Ohh.. lolbigcontentfatcats.com the next big thing on the web!
On the post: Chinese Copyright Proposal Would Allow Compulsory Licensing Of Music After Three Months
On the post: New York Convinces Game Companies To Kick Registered Sex Offenders Off Gaming Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New York Convinces Game Companies To Kick Registered Sex Offenders Off Gaming Services
Re:
On the post: Paramount's Post-SOPA 'Outreach' To Law Students About 'Content Theft' Still Shows An Out Of Touch Operation
Re: Big dull antiquated Hollywood,
On the post: Unfortunate: Appeals Court Revives Misguided Rosetta Stone Lawsuit Against Google
On the post: More Mistakes In The Megaupload Prosecution: Videotape Of The Mansion Raid Has Gone Missing
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re:
So if this is true, then why doesn't copyright expire upon the creators death? After all a dead person doesn't need any kind of incentive to create anything besides fertilizer.
On the post: Ray Charles' Foundation Sues His Own Children In Copyright Fight
Re:
Also.. since companies are considered people now and monetary donations are considered speech, copyright on a work is life of the author (the company) + X years... does the copyright never expire?
Next >>