That's awesome. Too bad it can't be fair use as it isn't educational, parody, or commentary. And it clearly diminishes the value of the original ... oh, wait ...
The petition is just asking the same court to hear it again, only with more judges at the same appellate level. They can (and hopefully will) simply deny the petition, saying, "Our comrades have spoken; we're done with this."
Yeah, probably just one, tiny snippet of dicta in the ruling that gives the attorneys an insanely attenuated argument to rationalize continuing, in the hope of hitting something, anything (plus fees, fees, and more fees).
The nasty ding is ordering him to serve the sanctions order in other courts. That had to be about sending a message. And it wasn't just that he had violated Rule 26 re early discovery -- he had brought a motion to be relieved of its obligations, then violated the rule. No arguing mistake ...
The court only had to make a discretionary call (very tough to flip on appeal) per the violated rule itself. Awesome.
Oh, and how would this Court even know to hire the EFF, et al? A: Was already up on this sort of thing. This order reads like a message to trolls everywhere.
Notwithstanding that pesky First Amendment which these folks apparently thinks will give this statute a pass, here's a fun bit - Section 2.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
Wow. Rather than a clause like "does not expand or limit existing statutes..." they just repeal anything that ain't the same, meaning potentially the definitions of "defamation," "Nudity," "Obscene depiction" and "Sexual conduct" throughout all of Georgia jurisprudence. Hilarious.
Also, one of the "procedural" issues relating to SOPA/PIPA is that private plaintiffs are out there right now getting judgments and injunctions against foreign sites (albeit mostly through judicial fiat), and obtaining the very relief they say SOPA/PIPA is needed for -- without the widspread damaging effects those laws would wreak.
DMCA is necessary to protect intermediates, but is horribly abused. My office has a system in place to make DMCA counter-notices as quick as possible, and still it can't be done for less than $100 without granting a pretty hefty client credit. There's always some hashing out with the host or its counsel.
Bogus claims abound, and the host often takes an entire site down in response. The attorney fees in getting the site back online are generally nothing compared to the revenue lost by the victim in the hours (or days) that the site is down.
Sure, you can sue for damages for the bogus takedown notice -- if you can get to the bad guys -- but it's like placing a $20,000 bet on an even-odds team. You might get some of the losses back (minus the "juice" in bookie parlance), or you might just lose it all. Or better yet, have an unenforceable judgement for your wall. Not usually cost effective.
The losses are being suffered, but it generally ain't going to the copyright lawyers. It's going into competitors' pockets or the ether.
I read the story without watching the videos then tried to imagine what the theme was, and came up with the same thing. It's a big fat duh. Besides, the "idea" of it isn't what's really protected by copyright; it's the execution. And from that perspective, the ads are quite different. (Try to enforce this copyright: "Plaintive music; various shots of common electric items being run by internal combustion engine; cue subject vehicle; VO states the obvious - 'Electric car good.'")
On the post: Author Jonathan Franzen Thinks That Ebooks Mean The World Will No Longer Work
Re:
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft, But Censorship Is
On the post: Apparently Veoh Isn't Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks For Rehearing Of Its Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re:
On the post: Apparently Veoh Isn't Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks For Rehearing Of Its Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re:
On the post: Court Finds Copyright Trolling Lawyer Evan Stone In Contempt; Orders Him To Pay Attorneys' Fees
The court only had to make a discretionary call (very tough to flip on appeal) per the violated rule itself. Awesome.
Oh, and how would this Court even know to hire the EFF, et al? A: Was already up on this sort of thing. This order reads like a message to trolls everywhere.
On the post: Georgia Lawmaker Looking To Make Photoshopping Heads On Naked Bodies Illegal
Defamation as they knew it ...
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
Wow. Rather than a clause like "does not expand or limit existing statutes..." they just repeal anything that ain't the same, meaning potentially the definitions of "defamation," "Nudity," "Obscene depiction" and "Sexual conduct" throughout all of Georgia jurisprudence. Hilarious.
On the post: What Is Ron Paul Thinking? Sues To Unmask Anonymous Internet Users
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Don't Think The 'Costs' To US Businesses From Bogus Claims Is Real? Read This
Bogus claims abound, and the host often takes an entire site down in response. The attorney fees in getting the site back online are generally nothing compared to the revenue lost by the victim in the hours (or days) that the site is down.
Sure, you can sue for damages for the bogus takedown notice -- if you can get to the bad guys -- but it's like placing a $20,000 bet on an even-odds team. You might get some of the losses back (minus the "juice" in bookie parlance), or you might just lose it all. Or better yet, have an unenforceable judgement for your wall. Not usually cost effective.
The losses are being suffered, but it generally ain't going to the copyright lawyers. It's going into competitors' pockets or the ether.
On the post: Andy Samberg, Neil Gaiman, Trent Reznor, Aziz Ansari, Adam Savage & More Tell Congress: Don't Pass PIPA Or SOPA In Our Names
Lloyd Freaking Kaufman
On the post: California Politician Discovers That You Can't Ban Specific Type Of Music; Admits 'I Didn't Know What Was Going On'
Re: 4:20
On the post: Crazy Coincidence, Plagiarism, Or An Obvious Idea For An Electric Car Ad?
Duh...
Next >>