Well, in theory it does work both ways. For example Disney doesn't own "Snow White" (an old, old story) but it does own "the Seven Dwarves" (a totally original addition in the animated movie).
Of course, in practice, anyone making anything based on Snow White is treading a minefield, whether they are genuinely copying Disney's original elements or not. Because it's Disney.
Afraid not. That's not how it works at all. There's no requirement to show actual harm in a copyright lawsuit. That only enters into it if they ask for *actual damages*, in which case they need to show the harm. But instead, in basically all lawsuits, they ask for *statutory damages* which are up to $150k per work infringed and do not require any demonstration of harm.
In this particular case (again common) CBS has asked for statutory damages but also said they are retaining the right to choose actual damages instead if they demonstrate harm later in court. But they won't do that, since there's no way they could beat the free statutory damages.
Well, I don't think they are in it for the money - but I do think they want to win it, simply for the precedents it could establish restricting the public domain.
Re: Re: Re: Considering how may article titles on Tech Dirt say "Trump"
Whining like a bitch? What a sexist comment coming from the left.
I wonder if this guy will ever realize that the big left/right war he's fighting in only exists in his head, and maybe other comment sections, but not here.
I could see it going a lot of different ways, depending on the judge. I doubt it will be a 100% win for CBS -- at the very least, I'd be pretty shocked if the court agreed that there are 79 counts of infringement on all 79 individual prior episodes. That will probably get kicked back and forth a bit until CBS adjusts their claim to list a handful of specific episodes that establish identifiable elements which they say have been infringed.
Actually the 79 episodes they claim infringement on are the ones that came before the public domain ones, and there are some others that came afterwards which are not included in that part of the suit or the damages calculation (but are mentioned as part of establishing their ongoing copyright on the characters). Sorry if that wasn't clear in the post. Though frankly I'm sure they would have sued over the later episodes too if they thought they could get away with it.
And since everyone is explaining how the US is a torture state, I think we can go ahead and cast the net a little further:
Solitary confinement is considered torture by virtually all experts on the subject, and by the UN. The US holds an estimated minimum of 20,000 citizens in solitary confinement at any given time, and possibly as many as 80,000. No other modern free state comes even close.
The only bizarre thing would be claiming that the US is *not* a mass torture state.
Re: Re: This post really doubles down on #fakenews
You know that comment was voted into that spot by our readers, right? I didn't choose it.
Of course, I do still agree with it, and your attempts to defend Breitbart are flimsy at best -- but just not quite as flimsy as your attempt to pin a statement on me when I had nothing to do with it.
Dude, nobody cares about your obsessive comparisons to criticisms of other candidates or past politicians.
I mean, if you really want to, go for it: do some sort of data mining study, count up all the words on Techdirt discussing each of these people, rank them on a scale of how critical they are, crunch the numbers and give us a report on precisely how hard we've been on every politician. We'll gladly look at it and say "hm, interesting" - then we'll get back to doing what we do, which is comment on important policy issues as they come up.
Other than that, get over it! Trump is gonna be president, and so we're going to spend a lot of time analyzing and criticizing him. That sort of comes with the territory. We're not going to add a footnote to every post saying "Clinton and Obama also suck" just to keep reminding you.
Re: Playboy, Kotaku Misreport On Nintendo Firing Employee
That writer says "citation needed" after the assertion that gamergate is a harassment campaign under the guise of being about ethics in games journalism - so he's either a naive fool, or a lying part of gamergate himself. Either way, not much credibility.
Heh sorry - I *did* realize your comment was a joke but I've seen the comparison elsewhere and I liked the response. I should have made that clearer in the post!
Oh please. That's trash and you know it. Of course it's different.
One is a single comment that has been blown massively out of proportion, and even if you do want to obsess over the comment itself, he's never repeated it or attempted to stand behind it, and there is an at-least-reasonable argument that it made sense in context (one accepted by the people in the best possible position to refute it).
The other is an individual on a years-long campaign of repeatedly making the same false claim thousands of times, using the law to attempt to force people to acknowledge it, and constantly attempting to extract financial rewards on top of all that. And the claim is actively, loudly refuted by the best possible people in a position to do so (including many of the same people).
If you honestly think one is "no better" than the other... Look again.
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Lover this..
Of course, in practice, anyone making anything based on Snow White is treading a minefield, whether they are genuinely copying Disney's original elements or not. Because it's Disney.
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.eff.org/wp/collateral-damages-why-congress-needs-fix-copyright-laws-civil-penalties
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Afraid not. That's not how it works at all. There's no requirement to show actual harm in a copyright lawsuit. That only enters into it if they ask for *actual damages*, in which case they need to show the harm. But instead, in basically all lawsuits, they ask for *statutory damages* which are up to $150k per work infringed and do not require any demonstration of harm.
In this particular case (again common) CBS has asked for statutory damages but also said they are retaining the right to choose actual damages instead if they demonstrate harm later in court. But they won't do that, since there's no way they could beat the free statutory damages.
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How 'Just Metadata' Helped Ruin A Career Diplomat's Life
Re: Re: Re: Considering how may article titles on Tech Dirt say "Trump"
I wonder if this guy will ever realize that the big left/right war he's fighting in only exists in his head, and maybe other comment sections, but not here.
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Re:
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: CBS's Flight into Temporal Shifts
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: This post really doubles down on #fakenews
Solitary confinement is considered torture by virtually all experts on the subject, and by the UN. The US holds an estimated minimum of 20,000 citizens in solitary confinement at any given time, and possibly as many as 80,000. No other modern free state comes even close.
The only bizarre thing would be claiming that the US is *not* a mass torture state.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: This post really doubles down on #fakenews
Of course, I do still agree with it, and your attempts to defend Breitbart are flimsy at best -- but just not quite as flimsy as your attempt to pin a statement on me when I had nothing to do with it.
On the post: Trump Appoints Third Anti-Net Neutrality Advisor To Telecom Transition Team
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I mean, if you really want to, go for it: do some sort of data mining study, count up all the words on Techdirt discussing each of these people, rank them on a scale of how critical they are, crunch the numbers and give us a report on precisely how hard we've been on every politician. We'll gladly look at it and say "hm, interesting" - then we'll get back to doing what we do, which is comment on important policy issues as they come up.
Other than that, get over it! Trump is gonna be president, and so we're going to spend a lot of time analyzing and criticizing him. That sort of comes with the territory. We're not going to add a footnote to every post saying "Clinton and Obama also suck" just to keep reminding you.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Playboy, Kotaku Misreport On Nintendo Firing Employee
GG are victims of a witch hunt
You misspelled "perpetrators"
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Playboy, Kotaku Misreport On Nintendo Firing Employee
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
I'll need to hear it from a grownup before I believe that's how it really happened.
On the post: Companies Keep Asking Us To Track You; We'd Rather You Be Protected From Tracking
Re:
On the post: Companies Keep Asking Us To Track You; We'd Rather You Be Protected From Tracking
Re:
PIA is among the most aggressive VPNs in offering anonymous ways to pay. You can pay using Bitcoin, or using a wide variety of retail gift cards.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Biggest failure award?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: And in second place, false history
Oh please. That's trash and you know it. Of course it's different.
One is a single comment that has been blown massively out of proportion, and even if you do want to obsess over the comment itself, he's never repeated it or attempted to stand behind it, and there is an at-least-reasonable argument that it made sense in context (one accepted by the people in the best possible position to refute it).
The other is an individual on a years-long campaign of repeatedly making the same false claim thousands of times, using the law to attempt to force people to acknowledge it, and constantly attempting to extract financial rewards on top of all that. And the claim is actively, loudly refuted by the best possible people in a position to do so (including many of the same people).
If you honestly think one is "no better" than the other... Look again.
Next >>