I said it was 'possible.' Honestly, do you just want to attack me, or do you want to go back and look at the physics of it like I have for nearly 30 years? Yes, as an amateur, but still... Besides, show me one instance where the tail falling off is the ONLY reason the plane crashed.
"In the court’s view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing more, nor less, than a law firm — which incidentally I don’t think is licensed to practice law in this state — with a contingent fee agreement masquerading as a company."
"Silvers only says you can't transfer the bare right to sue. It doesn't say you can't have a contract where ownership transfers but there's also a license back."
Then you say that you support people twisting the words of a law to bypass the intent of the law. Re-read this, and think about it. They 'bought' the rights, then in the same agreement immediately licensed, exclusively, all those rights back to the people they purchased the copyright from. THIS is where most of us are seeing an issue with that first contract. It is so transparent a scam to most of us that it just boggles the mind that they thought they'd get away with it.
Incidentally, this is why a lot of people don't like lawyers, either. There are some really good ones out there, but the word weasels tend to darken the name far too easily.
There is a huge stretch between teaching someone to be 'rude and confrontational,' and teaching them to stand for what you feel is right. How do you know she wasn't level-headed in the beginning? Were you there?
And we have two versions of how she reacted. Either she 'stated firmly and loudly,' or she 'screamed obscenities and verbal abuse,' depending on who wrote it. The first sounds like they are taking the woman's side, the second sounds like the TSA 'CMA' version.
This is not necessarily true. The tailplane is more to balance the plane and provide control, but is not a 'weight' to 'keep the nose up.' Often it does the exact opposite, providing a nose-down force during gusts, and helping to stabilize center of gravity in flight. It is entirely possible to fly and land without the tail, but it would take a great bit of flying to do it.
Also, corkscrewing? Not because the tail is missing...
That is an automated system designed to catch spammers, bots and the like. Mike regularly goes through them and clears it out, so your comment should show up at some point.
Yes, she has that choice. None of us are arguing that point. However, she says she's taking the high road in a discussion that doesn't welcome any sort of discussion except the side she supports. That's neither a 'high road' or a 'discussion.' Frankly, it seems more like mental masturbation.
"Likewise, his contract with Daily Mail may have specified that he allowed them the photos only on the condition that they restrict use in this way."
This begs a question. If it is shown that there can be no copyright on this work, having no human author, then could such a contract be enforceable? Since any such picture/photo would be automatically relegated to the public domain, I do not see how they could assert rights they do not have.
Basically? Because they don't do that, and it has been shown time and again that these cameras decrease safety, not increase. If you can't understand that, then you need to read more articles on this subject.
'unspoken caveats' will rarely win you the day in a court of law. Just because you understood these things to be unspoken does not mean someone else did. Now, you are perfectly within your rights to ask for your phone back at any time, but I really doubt your legal theories, here.
On the post: Incubus Promotes New Album With Misguided Anti-Piracy 8-Bit Video Game?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re:
Isn't that lovely?
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you say that you support people twisting the words of a law to bypass the intent of the law. Re-read this, and think about it. They 'bought' the rights, then in the same agreement immediately licensed, exclusively, all those rights back to the people they purchased the copyright from. THIS is where most of us are seeing an issue with that first contract. It is so transparent a scam to most of us that it just boggles the mind that they thought they'd get away with it.
Incidentally, this is why a lot of people don't like lawyers, either. There are some really good ones out there, but the word weasels tend to darken the name far too easily.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
Re:
And we have two versions of how she reacted. Either she 'stated firmly and loudly,' or she 'screamed obscenities and verbal abuse,' depending on who wrote it. The first sounds like they are taking the woman's side, the second sounds like the TSA 'CMA' version.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
Re: Re:
Also, corkscrewing? Not because the tail is missing...
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re: Tried to sneak this in
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
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: 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: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
Re: "almost certainly"
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Government
Feel better?
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: contract law
This begs a question. If it is shown that there can be no copyright on this work, having no human author, then could such a contract be enforceable? Since any such picture/photo would be automatically relegated to the public domain, I do not see how they could assert rights they do not have.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re:
http://www.traps.com.au/cameras.htm
On the post: You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought: Verizon Breaks Phones; Turns Off Feature
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
Skip forward to the 50 second mark...
On the post: Legal Technicality Forces Houston To Turn Its Redlight Cameras Back On, Even Though It Wants Them Off
Re:
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>