You can do it by having a contract beforehand that they can't make the movie you pitch (obviously within a limited time period). Then, if they do, you can sue them for breaching the contract.
I agree with you. I still think it's wrong and unconstitutional, but the Slashdot discussion degraded into all politicians that want change going against the law (which is inaccurate). I would prefer that to not happen here on Techdirt.
Immediately after the "..." in your summary, it says "by force or violence or other unlawful means". I think leaving that out will derail the discussion a bit.
I agree with you, to an extent, on this one. It's like how bad drivers are bad drivers whether they have cell phones in their hands or not. I'm still not interested, however, in records of exactly when and where I've been out of my home, regardless of lack of criminal history or oversight. If they want to watch people, they need to either have probable cause or 100% reasonable laws and transparency. The latter seems impossible.
You're acting as if copyright is based on common sense. It doesn't work that way.
I can't see how you would believe the rights would go to anyone other than the animal (or nobody) if:
1. It has free will in pointing the camera, and intentionally points it at things.
2. It hasn't deliberately signed over the rights to its creation.
The issue that we're running into is that chimps aren't total idiots. They're not robots and they're not obedient dogs; they were deliberately pointing the camera at things.
I tend to do my taxes for free online, with Intuit's TurboTax. Now they charge you $30 if you want to load in your info from last year; the "reason to buy" is that they'll import your address info, dependents, etc., rather than making you fill in the same fields again. It's especially annoying since they did it for free last year.
A computer with access to the internet is necessary for school-aged children. The mother doesn't understand computers well enough to monitor the connection. If you watch kids all the time they have to use the computer, you don't have time for any parenting. And if they were using a file-sharing app, there's no guarantee she would even know what it is. So what was she supposed to do?
The difference between counterfeits and imitations is that it's supposed to be difficult to tell a counterfeit from the original. If this is a counterfeit DVD, how is the layperson supposed to know it's not real?
Now, if we're talking bootleg, that's a completely different situation.
Technically speaking, I doubt a lot of the prisoners are going to hear music they like and buy a cd or t-shirt, or attend to a live show. And they may not be the people you most want for word-of-mouth advertising purposes. Still, I agree with you. They're certainly not there for the ambiance.
Work for hire? Teachers are hired and paid to teach, not to generate lesson plans. Lesson plans are a supplemental material to help them in their jobs, not an output they're compensated for.
On the post: Summit Entertainment Sues, Saying Only It Can Make A Documentary About How 'Twilight' Impacted Forks, WA
Re: Is it legal to steal a pitch idea?
On the post: If You're Subversive, And Live In South Carolina, Please Register With The State Gov't
Re: Re: Why did you leave it out?
On the post: If You're Subversive, And Live In South Carolina, Please Register With The State Gov't
Why did you leave it out?
On the post: Developer Seems To Think Trademark On 'Army Builder' Means No One Can Use It In Conversation
Clarification
On the post: UK Whistleblowers Highlight The Dangers Of Widespread Police Surveillance/Database
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Sad waste of time.
On the post: Technology Blamed For Bad Grammar Despite Total Lack Of Causal Evidence
Re: Re:
On the post: If A Video Is Filmed By Chimps... Who Owns The Copyright?
Re:
I can't see how you would believe the rights would go to anyone other than the animal (or nobody) if:
1. It has free will in pointing the camera, and intentionally points it at things.
2. It hasn't deliberately signed over the rights to its creation.
The issue that we're running into is that chimps aren't total idiots. They're not robots and they're not obedient dogs; they were deliberately pointing the camera at things.
On the post: Intuit Lobbying The Government To Make It More Difficult To File Your Tax Returns
TurboTax
On the post: What The IFPI Report Left Out: Its Own Study Showed That File Sharers Do Buy
Re:
On the post: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Appeal Planned
Re: America at "war"
On the post: German Court Finds Mother Liable For Kid's File Sharing, Despite Her Ban On The Practice
Re: Re: Re: Parental Responsibility
On the post: German Court Finds Mother Liable For Kid's File Sharing, Despite Her Ban On The Practice
Re: Parental Responsibility
On the post: IFPI: Piracy Bad!!! Government Must Fix Because We Don't Want To Adapt!
Re:
On the post: Remember The MATRIX? Former Drug Smuggler In Charge Of It Is Building More Databases...
Movie rental history
On the post: Malaysia's New Copyright Act To Make Owning A Single Counterfeit DVD Illegal
Counterfeits
Now, if we're talking bootleg, that's a completely different situation.
On the post: Prisons And Hair Dressers Latest To Push Back On Ridiculous Collection Society Demands
Promotional value of prisoners
On the post: NY Times Apparently Planning To Commit Suicide Online With Paywall
Re: SUBSCRIPTION FEDERATION - the only wat to get people to pay
On the post: School Wants To Claim Copyright Over Any Lesson Plans Created By Teachers
Re:
On the post: Sarkozy's Party Found Violating Copyright Yet Again With Awful Lipdub
Re:
Next >>