And could you explain how 37 CFR 202.1 applies in Poland?
Thanks.
I didn't say it did. Don't be silly.
You know, you wrote an article called: "Can You Copyright A Single Word?" I guess I was wrong to think you'd appreciate my input as to what the law is in the country you live in. My bad. Clearly you are not.
The blog caved and took down the post, so we can't see the full post to see if what was written really infringed on the copyright, but if the script is fake, simply reviewing it shouldn't infringe on anyone's copyright.
Whether it's real or fake, the script is copyrighted since it's a creative work fixed in a tangible form. Either way, though, I don't see how reviewing it is copyright infringement.
Maybe. I think the bad press and the cost to litigate were what made them throw in the towel. Hill had the hungry press and a hungry pro bono attorney on his side. I don't blame Righthaven for walking away.
You're right. I should have said vanilla copying, not infringement. It might not have been infringement. You're absolutely right. But it certainly was copying, which is what makes the lawsuit legitimate.
The circumstances of his health are most unfortunate, and it's a good thing that Righthaven backed down. Still, I don't see how the complaint wasn't legitimate to begin with. It was just vanilla infringement.
It is strange that on the one hand, Hill was claiming to be in serious settlement talks with Righthaven, but on the other hand, Hill opposed their motion for more time to respond to his motion. Usually parties that are in settlement talks do not oppose such motions. It's a gesture of good faith.
Regardless, despite Righthaven's silly warnings to other defendants at the end of their notice, this case does show that they'll back down if the stakes get too high.
No, I meant explain how these new rulings are "backpedaling" and "correcting" her earlier rulings. I just don't see it.
Her earlier rulings were in three cases where Time Warner had moved to quash subpoenas they'd received to turn over subscriber information. Amici had raised the issue of misjoinder, so she addressed the arguments, finding that joinder at these preliminary stages was proper. She noted that as plead, the plaintiffs had met the requirements for joinder. She cited relevant case law to back up her decision. She made similar rulings with respect to the jurisdictional and First Amendment issues. Her analysis was thorough, and thoroughly backed up by caselaw.
The issues there were threshold ones, i.e., whether or not subscriber information would be turned over to USCG.
These new rulings have nothing to do with those issues. The issues here are about what happens now that USCG already has this information.
That's why I'm asking what I'm asking. In what way do these new rulings show that she is changing gears?
If anything, I think the new rulings show more of the same behavior on her part. The 120-day window in the Call of the Wild case had already been extended once. That extension was up in November, and only now is the court inquiring about it. USCG is offering to dismiss the defendants, and she's simply saying that either they should do it, or she will. Big deal. The issues in the Maverick case are similar. USCG is ready to dismiss, and she says she'll do it if they don't. Big deal.
How does any of that show "backpedaling" or "correcting"?
It doesn't. It's total FUD.
I'm simply asking Mike to explain his point, if he's able. I'm sure he has an explanation.
An idea that's being widely done by others is not a trade secret.
How does that negate my statement? You said ideas cannot be stolen. I responded that it's called misappropriation of trade secrets. I was speaking generally, and I stand by my statement--because it is factually correct.
Moreover, one of the claims by the Brothers Winklevoss was--you guessed it--misappropriation of trade secrets. So that was actually the issue in this particular case. Either way, my statement is 100% correct. The merits or lack thereof of their claim does not negative my statement. I made no claim about the strength of their claims.
Seriously, please change your name from FUD Buster to FUD Spreader.
My statement was 100% correct. I don't get your point, nor do I understand the hostility.
And she's allowing the "quest" to go on: She's letting the plaintiffs file amended complaints with an invitation to add as many more defendants to the suit as they please. How this is "backpedaling" is beyond me.
You have it backwards. He wasn't saying that the decline is due to Internet porn. What he was that the very fact that there is a decline debunks the assertion that Internet porn was causing an increase.
Not necessarily, and that's just my point. For all we know, there are other factors that account for the decline, and the reality is that internet porn actually works against that decline. Internet porn is just one of many factors. You can have an increase in the ills associated with internet porn, but have a decline overall, once you figure in the other factors. Without more information, those numbers are meaningless... and quite misleading.
On the post: Can You Copyright A Single Word?
Re: Re:
Thanks.
I didn't say it did. Don't be silly.
You know, you wrote an article called: "Can You Copyright A Single Word?" I guess I was wrong to think you'd appreciate my input as to what the law is in the country you live in. My bad. Clearly you are not.
On the post: Perfect 10's Latest Bizarre Arguments Against Google Heard By Skeptical Appeals Court
On the post: Lionsgate Claims That Reviewing A Fake Script Is Copyright Infringement
Whether it's real or fake, the script is copyrighted since it's a creative work fixed in a tangible form. Either way, though, I don't see how reviewing it is copyright infringement.
On the post: Perfect 10's Latest Bizarre Arguments Against Google Heard By Skeptical Appeals Court
Re: 512(c)3(B)(i)
On the post: Can You Copyright A Single Word?
§ 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans . . . .
http://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-1.html
On the post: You Can't Eat Prestige
Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
It is strange that on the one hand, Hill was claiming to be in serious settlement talks with Righthaven, but on the other hand, Hill opposed their motion for more time to respond to his motion. Usually parties that are in settlement talks do not oppose such motions. It's a gesture of good faith.
Regardless, despite Righthaven's silly warnings to other defendants at the end of their notice, this case does show that they'll back down if the stakes get too high.
On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
How was this lawsuit against Hill not legitimate?
On the post: Judge Backpedals On Allowing Mass Infringement Lawsuits After Press Calls Attention To Her RIAA Lobbying Past
Re: Re:
Her earlier rulings were in three cases where Time Warner had moved to quash subpoenas they'd received to turn over subscriber information. Amici had raised the issue of misjoinder, so she addressed the arguments, finding that joinder at these preliminary stages was proper. She noted that as plead, the plaintiffs had met the requirements for joinder. She cited relevant case law to back up her decision. She made similar rulings with respect to the jurisdictional and First Amendment issues. Her analysis was thorough, and thoroughly backed up by caselaw.
The issues there were threshold ones, i.e., whether or not subscriber information would be turned over to USCG.
These new rulings have nothing to do with those issues. The issues here are about what happens now that USCG already has this information.
That's why I'm asking what I'm asking. In what way do these new rulings show that she is changing gears?
If anything, I think the new rulings show more of the same behavior on her part. The 120-day window in the Call of the Wild case had already been extended once. That extension was up in November, and only now is the court inquiring about it. USCG is offering to dismiss the defendants, and she's simply saying that either they should do it, or she will. Big deal. The issues in the Maverick case are similar. USCG is ready to dismiss, and she says she'll do it if they don't. Big deal.
How does any of that show "backpedaling" or "correcting"?
It doesn't. It's total FUD.
I'm simply asking Mike to explain his point, if he's able. I'm sure he has an explanation.
On the post: Judge Backpedals On Allowing Mass Infringement Lawsuits After Press Calls Attention To Her RIAA Lobbying Past
Re:
Crickets....
On the post: Winklevoss Twins Told To Accept The Millions Facebook Has Already Given Them And To Stop Complaining
Re: Re:
How does that negate my statement? You said ideas cannot be stolen. I responded that it's called misappropriation of trade secrets. I was speaking generally, and I stand by my statement--because it is factually correct.
Moreover, one of the claims by the Brothers Winklevoss was--you guessed it--misappropriation of trade secrets. So that was actually the issue in this particular case. Either way, my statement is 100% correct. The merits or lack thereof of their claim does not negative my statement. I made no claim about the strength of their claims.
Seriously, please change your name from FUD Buster to FUD Spreader.
My statement was 100% correct. I don't get your point, nor do I understand the hostility.
On the post: Judge Backpedals On Allowing Mass Infringement Lawsuits After Press Calls Attention To Her RIAA Lobbying Past
Re: Re:
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re: Re:
Not necessarily, and that's just my point. For all we know, there are other factors that account for the decline, and the reality is that internet porn actually works against that decline. Internet porn is just one of many factors. You can have an increase in the ills associated with internet porn, but have a decline overall, once you figure in the other factors. Without more information, those numbers are meaningless... and quite misleading.
Next >>