I was able to add "A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas" to my saved queue. I thought maybe it's because the article was old, but I found I could even add "Dark Knight Rises" to my queue. That's not even scheduled to be released in theaters until July...
My understanding is that "synchronization rights" are not covered under the standard ASCAP license, so you can't make a video with your ASCAP-licensed music as a soundtrack and then show that video. And that appears to be exactly what they did.
Agreed, and some museums just outright ban photography because too many people don't know how to turn their flash off, so it's just easier ban it entirely. This ban, however, looks like it has nothing to do with that.
That explanation is nonsense. McDonalds has two bathrooms (1 for men, 1 for women) for all their guests, while a large hotel has to provide a bathroom for every room (including the costs of plumbing, showers, supplies, and a large dedicated cleaning staff to maintain them). Despite the enormous differences in costs (including on-going costs, not just the initial setup), both businesses don't have a line-item expense for using the bathroom. There are probably still some exceptions in places around the world, but your more likely to find pay toilets in a McDonalds than at an expensive hotel.
That doesn't mean you don't pay for them (TANSTAAFL), just that they don't have a line item cost associated with their use. And yet, the demand for toilets is pretty inelastic. EVERYONE needs them eventually. So there's no separating consumers that are willing to pay for them from those that aren't, so you simply include it in the price of your goods. That's partly why the $300/night hotel costs $300/night.
There's no way to say that the COST of WiFi is the reason one charges and the other doesn't. But the demand for WiFi at McDonalds, where you aren't likely (or technically even allowed) to stay for more than an hour, isn't nearly as great as the room you will stay in all night. WiFi can even be seen as a loss leader for McDonalds, where they don't mind losing a little money to get you in the door. It's not a necessity, but if it gets you in the door, it will pay for itself. And, again, it's not really "free," it's included in the cost of the Big Mac.
Cheap motels will also use free WiFi as a loss leader. Where there's heavy competition and all the rooms are in the $50/night range, free WiFi suddenly becomes a factor in your decision of where to stay.
At an expensive hotel, however, they're competing on a lot more than the WiFi. Nicer rooms, the restaurants in the hotel, the nearby attractions, conferences, etc. They're also marketed towards a different clientele, namely business versus consumer. And businesses pay more, period. And a business traveler has no problem paying the extra fee for WiFi so they can do their work.
Plus, since demand for WiFi is more elastic (you can usually still use it free in the lobby, use your smart phone, or just live without it for a while), it makes sense for them to charge extra.
Actually, if Righthaven doesn't have standing, that means a settlement with Righthaven doesn't protect you from anything either and the real copyright holder is still free to sue you anytime.
Part of the issue here is that there was no quid pro quo in the contract. In other words, Walmart provided nothing and got nothing from this contract. You can't make a contract that says "you give me everything and I don't have to do anything". Even the signature of a legal adult won't make that a valid contract. That's why you sometimes have a contract for $1.
Courts have consistently found that email can create a valid contract, but there has to be SOME sort of affirmative response and not just a "you replied, you agreed".
I was going to say the same thing. In fact, it wasn't even a completely original idea. The 1953 film Stalag 17 was also a comedy set in a POW camp (the producers sued CBS but lost).
However, "Life is Beautiful" is a comedy set in a concentration camp (although it's a movie and not a TV series).
Let's say Alice and Bob have a rental contract. The contract says that Alice is to pay Bob $100/month. Now let's say Bob uses his master key to enter the apartment and destroys all of Alice's property. How much is Bob liable for? The $100 for that month's rent, or the value of all the damage he caused?
And maybe Bob didn't do the damage himself, he just gave Alice's key to Charlie, her ex-lover. Charlie is responsible as well, but Bob is still clearly responsible for more than just the $100 rent.
She had her own phone in her own name (different last name) that SHE was financially liable for. Husband added cable and Rogers saw she was at the same address and moved her account to his (without telling or notifying her).
The pro-linux group exists to buy patents so that they can be freely shared. They did not buy them from MS but rather from another non-practicing entity that bought them from MS. And MS apparently was so kind when marketing these patents to document exactly how they could be used against Linux.
BTW, these weren't even MS "innovations." They were picked up when MS acquired SGI.
Gizmo is also nicely integrated with google voice. You can have your google voice incoming calls directed to a gizmo SIP address and you can have Gizmo outgoing calls routed through google voice. With that combo, you can have a 100% free VoIP phone (including free outgoing calls to US landlines).
Do you even know what that means? It means that, even if one trespasses by accident, they are LIABLE for any damages. But, and here's the important part, there were NO damages.
Courts don't like you crying to them to solve your petty disputes anymore than your mother does. If there was any "damage," it was the presence of the photo. The only "litigious solution" the court can offer (other than to pay damages, which were nil) would be to issue an injunction requiring google to take down the photo. But google will do that without the court's involvement. Therefore, the court is--rightly so--telling Boring to take a hike.
On the post: Warner Bros. Just Keeps Pushing People To Piracy; New Deal Also Delays Queuing
Works for me
On the post: Like Clockwork: Copyright Holders Mistakenly Freak Out About Presidential Candidates Using Their Music
Synchronization rights
On the post: Ownership Mentality: Art Gallery Prohibits Sketching
Re:
On the post: Is Using A Piece Of Existing Music In A Film To Underline An Emotion 'Rape' - Or Just The Way Cinema Works?
Dolly zoom
On the post: Major Labels, RIAA, Homeland Security All Spotted 'Pirating' Works
They'll pay it...
And then file a claim against their insurance.
On the post: Same Talking, Different Heads: How Not To Localize News
How it happened
On the post: White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA
I guess you haven't been reading WH responses
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-ins tead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN
On the post: What's The Most Expensive WiFi You've Seen?
Re:
That doesn't mean you don't pay for them (TANSTAAFL), just that they don't have a line item cost associated with their use. And yet, the demand for toilets is pretty inelastic. EVERYONE needs them eventually. So there's no separating consumers that are willing to pay for them from those that aren't, so you simply include it in the price of your goods. That's partly why the $300/night hotel costs $300/night.
There's no way to say that the COST of WiFi is the reason one charges and the other doesn't. But the demand for WiFi at McDonalds, where you aren't likely (or technically even allowed) to stay for more than an hour, isn't nearly as great as the room you will stay in all night. WiFi can even be seen as a loss leader for McDonalds, where they don't mind losing a little money to get you in the door. It's not a necessity, but if it gets you in the door, it will pay for itself. And, again, it's not really "free," it's included in the cost of the Big Mac.
Cheap motels will also use free WiFi as a loss leader. Where there's heavy competition and all the rooms are in the $50/night range, free WiFi suddenly becomes a factor in your decision of where to stay.
At an expensive hotel, however, they're competing on a lot more than the WiFi. Nicer rooms, the restaurants in the hotel, the nearby attractions, conferences, etc. They're also marketed towards a different clientele, namely business versus consumer. And businesses pay more, period. And a business traveler has no problem paying the extra fee for WiFi so they can do their work.
Plus, since demand for WiFi is more elastic (you can usually still use it free in the lobby, use your smart phone, or just live without it for a while), it makes sense for them to charge extra.
On the post: Those Who Settled With Righthaven Consider Taking Action; Righthaven Threatens Them With More Suits
Re:
On the post: Replying To An Email Does Not Create A Contract (And Does Not Require Walmart Pay $600 Billion)
Re: quid pro quo
Courts have consistently found that email can create a valid contract, but there has to be SOME sort of affirmative response and not just a "you replied, you agreed".
On the post: Katie Couric And Bryant Gumbel Discover The Internet
Re: Re:
On the post: Faux Randomness Strikes Again: How Researchers Realized Research 2000's Daily Kos Data Looked Faked
Re:
On the post: Scott Adams: Ideas vs. Execution
Re: small correction
However, "Life is Beautiful" is a comedy set in a concentration camp (although it's a movie and not a TV series).
On the post: Woman Sues Mobile Phone Provider, Because Consolidated Bill 'Revealed' Her Affair
Re:
Let's say Alice and Bob have a rental contract. The contract says that Alice is to pay Bob $100/month. Now let's say Bob uses his master key to enter the apartment and destroys all of Alice's property. How much is Bob liable for? The $100 for that month's rent, or the value of all the damage he caused?
And maybe Bob didn't do the damage himself, he just gave Alice's key to Charlie, her ex-lover. Charlie is responsible as well, but Bob is still clearly responsible for more than just the $100 rent.
On the post: Woman Sues Mobile Phone Provider, Because Consolidated Bill 'Revealed' Her Affair
Re: Makes sense to me
On the post: Waste Of Money: Pro-Linux Group Has To Buy Microsoft Patents
Re: I call stinkbait!
BTW, these weren't even MS "innovations." They were picked up when MS acquired SGI.
On the post: Waste Of Money: Pro-Linux Group Has To Buy Microsoft Patents
On the post: Skype Founders Claim eBay No Longer Has A Right To Skype's Core Tech
Gizmo/Google voice
On the post: No Smiling On Your Drivers License. It Makes Our Software Sad
No smiling, but anything else goes
On the post: The Borings Eloquently Appeal The Street View Ruling, Declaring: Google, Don't Tread On Me
Re: Re: They got it wrong
Do you even know what that means? It means that, even if one trespasses by accident, they are LIABLE for any damages. But, and here's the important part, there were NO damages.
Courts don't like you crying to them to solve your petty disputes anymore than your mother does. If there was any "damage," it was the presence of the photo. The only "litigious solution" the court can offer (other than to pay damages, which were nil) would be to issue an injunction requiring google to take down the photo. But google will do that without the court's involvement. Therefore, the court is--rightly so--telling Boring to take a hike.
Next >>