The world is NOT united against copyright infringement.
ME :
But the VERY vast majority of "elected officials" , in the world's Democracies,
Are "united against copyright infringement".
Do you dispute that fact?
---------------
Artist and Writers and Inventors and Musicians and Poets are too -
- for the most , at least 90% ,
( and in my opinion it is exactly at : 98.314159292 % ).
So you can certainly say , that as a "political force" in the "body politic" , from local to global ,,
Artist and Writers and Inventors and Musicians and Poets
also are "united against copyright infringement".
-----------------
See you in Court,
see you in Congress.
===============================
And for the gazillionth-and-one time. Copyright infringement is not stealing. Never has been, never will be. As THEFT is in a completely different lawbook than copyright ever will reside.
again , cite legal definitions , used by lawyers , judges , and legislators -- or else you words are jibberish.
Taking something for nothing, when the rights holder is AGAISNST it is stealing.
If a hungry person "steals" food , so he will not starve to death , it can be argued he did not morally steal. but legally he DID steal,
In some very poor countries this is a real world case issue.
--------------
Main Entry:1steal
Pronunciation: \ˈstēl\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole \ˈstōl\; sto·len \ˈstō-lən\; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal
-----------
a base transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b : to take away by force or unjust means
c : to take surreptitiously or without permission
d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : smuggle
b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring
Thankfully, it looks like the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU are trying to help out.
MIKE:
"Thankfully, it looks like the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU are trying to help out. "
Me: As I think/hope you know Mike , , the ACLU & co, are arguing a civil liberties point that is tangential to the core case, but not really addressing the matters of that core case. they do that all the time . ( remember the Col. Ollie North case for example.)
I think that is an important point that you missed-- iF i read all correctly.
Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
You :"For instance, we, the Dutch, are allowed to download from ++illegal ++sources."
ME: so you admit "illegal" or "Pirate". Are you a split
personality? I cannot debate both of you !!
If it is illegal to upload, are you not getting stolen property , in theory , but not in dutch Law.
-------------------
As written about here by mike at least once :
In U.S. law , some things you CAN NOT SELL ,
But can "give away" for free -- no money.
( Sex, "tripper mushrooms", car rides.)
I have no idea how bartering fits in. I mean we all barter things everyday.
"Give me a ride to the store , and i will do the dishes for you." (Think of your own example for sex bartering.)
I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
ME :according to your own words,, it is not completely legal ( w/o any law covering it ), but it is regulated , and it it not a "blank check" -- like say free speech.
YOU : "For instance, we, the Dutch, are allowed to download from illegal sources. Uploading is the offense, a civil matter, not a criminal matter, mind you. Like in the US copyright infringement is not a criminal matter by law, but a civil matter."
ME: you are getting sloppy in your words, facts , and opinions. If you do better , we all learn better.
In astronomy circles ---probably more than other sciences -- there is really no practical "scientific research" difference between pros & amateurs.
Let me elaborte:
An astronomer needs only his/her eyeball , and something to magnify the light -- a telescope -- to do scientific work OR just take pictures.
That is way it is a cool --- and pretty inexpensive--- serious hobby for kids and adults.
Amateur Astronomers are -- and have always been --- a very big part of astronomical visual-light-research.
(Radio & X-ray astronomy needs the big $$ for infrastructure and is a horse of a different color,, but it is still a horse.)
A bio-tech guy ,, needs a big lab, loads of VERY expensive equipment , and liability insurance , (in case he releases a new life form that the goes wild and eats the city of Pittsburgh .)
relationship between professional astronomers and amateur astronomers:"
from mikes post :
"where one astronomer talks about the very friendly relationship between professional astronomers and amateur astronomers:"
Me :
as you know mike from carefully reading everything i post here @ techdirt,, Astronomy is my big lifetime hobby( -- why do you always post of topics cited in my comments -- but yet never really reply to me direct ??--- either way I am honored.)
The ONLY difference between amateur Astronomers and "professional" ones, is a contract w/ an institution and a salary.
In astronomy circles ---probably more than other sciences -- there is really no practical "scientific research" difference between pros & amateurs.
Galileo was an amateur astronomer technically.
Most named comets are discovered by amateur Astronomers.
1. The person using DNA Research Online may view, reproduce or store copies of articles comprising the journal provided that the articles are used only for their personal, non-commercial use. Uses beyond that allowed by the "Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright law require permission of the publisher.
2. For permissions to copy beyond that permitted by the U.S. Copyright Law and for reprints, contact the Copyright Clearance Center. The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service appears in each abstract and full text article.
3. Any uses and or copies of this Journal in whole or in part must include the customary bibliographic citation, including author attribution, date, article title, DNA Research Online, and the URL http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/ and MUST include a copy of the copyright notice.
4. Personal accounts and/or passwords may not be shared.
Institutional Subscribers
Please read the Institutional Site Licence Agreement.
Re: Re: How many copyright infringers resort to violence when they download content?
YOU :"Non-commercial copyright infringement"
ME : there is no such thing as "Non-commercial copyright infringement"
Infringement means , some commercial use , some one made $$$,
that I can sue for. ( see link at very end of post )
If there is no $$$ , it is usually -- but not always -- fair use. ( again cited facts only !!! no more face value comments ! Let us really learn together , not just bicker w/o end.)
----------------------
----------------
(It is 5 am in NYC ? why am i here ? need more coffee, and a ciggee. Anybody know how the NY mets did last nite ? I am too busy here to check. [ i think it was an off day , but too busy to check] And what is the deal with Ump and the "perfect game" , can umpires & referees copyright their unique gestures? Search "Groucho Marx " before you answer !)
================= http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lucky-La wsuit
Lucky Brand Jeans, the Los Angeles–based denim brand, and its parent company, Liz Claiborne, have been ordered to pay a Miami clothing firm $300,000 following the conclusion of a 5-year-old trademark lawsuit.
The final judgment, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Smith in New York on May 28, follows a trial in April where a jury found that Lucky Brand had violated the “Get Lucky” trademark used on a line of teen apparel made by Marcel Fashion Group.
Liz Claiborne launched the lawsuit in 2005, claiming trademark infringement by Marcel and its licensee, Ally Apparel. Liz Claiborne sought a preliminary injunction against Marcel to stop using or licensing the “Get Lucky” trademark.
The lawsuit followed a 2003 contract signed by the two parties in which Liz Claiborne agreed not to use the trademark phrase “Get Lucky” on any of its Lucky Brand products or promotional materials. Marcel registered the trademark in 1986. Lucky Brand was founded in Los Angeles in 1990 and was acquired by Liz Claiborne in 1999.
Liz Claiborne filed its lawsuit because, the company said, Marcel was using clover branding similar to Lucky Brand’s clover branding.
In August 2005, the court denied Liz Claiborne’s preliminary-injunction request. Marcel then filed counterclaims of trademark infringement against Liz Claiborne, resulting in the $300,000 award, which includes punitive damages. In the final judgment, Liz Claiborne waived all rights to appeal.
“This is a complete victory for the little guy,” said Ezra Mizrachi, president of Marcel Fashion Group, in a statement. “Lucky Brand and Liz Claiborne tried to put the “Get Lucky” apparel line out of business with this lawsuit, but instead the jury decided that they are the ones who committed trademark infringement.”—Deborah Belgum
Re: Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
YOU :"Actually, you do know that independent studies have pointed out that these so-called pirates statistically pay more for entertainment than non-pirates, right? In essence, these so-called pirates are your biggest revenue source.
And you want to kill them? "
ME :: BACK IT UP WITH cited facts and case law !!!
Words alone do not cut it .
I back up my opinion with citation here in this thread ,, that is why I post articles , or give links.
I take , NOTHING on face values of someones word!
You do not from me ! I will not from you !
---------------------------------------
YOU :
In essence, these so-called pirates are your biggest revenue source.
ME :
HOW is the $$ collected from the pirates ,, and given to the ARTISTs. HOW ?!?!?!?!
Legal down load is OK ,
Itunes and etc,,
but and ILLEGAL download
, by fact of its nature ,
pays no royalties--
that is why it is a PIRATE !!
Your answers do not ad up at all.
BACK it up , citation , court cases , and facts !!!!!
Or quit posting !!!
( because after 300 + comments , the page loads slow ),
--------------------------
-------------------------
SO no more comments w/o facts -- me too.
Let us FORMALIZE , or little debate[s] here.
I hold you to the same fire now , you hold me too.
Clean your keyboard , and get READY to RUMBLE !!!!!!!
FACT w/ citation only to back up points !!!
=====================================
(( I hope Mike has the server space -- maybe he should set up a paywall ? (sic)
I mean i am storing my thesis on copyright @ techdirt for free!?!?!
Right ?!?!
Who owns my words here ?!?!?
Mike , Me , public domain !?!?
Again FACTS w/ citation of court cases.))
=============================
=====================
======e==n==d===of====p=o=s=t======
YOU :you can't copyright facts (even though there are institutions that try it).
ME : OK , but is not DNA a "unique fact" ? Does that change it ? facts tend to be , date , place, time . Are your fingerprints FACTS? Answer with citation only !!
YOU :And yes I'm 100% sure.
ANS : back it up . We are in FORMAL debate mode. ( now saying you are wrong ,, but I will not cede points w/o proof.)
YOU :btw, if you clone me, my dna is still my dna,
ME : If you cannot copyright it , HOW IS IT YOURS ? Where is the legal protection ?
How Would it be argued in court?
Answers with citations please !!
AS Your ans. are NOT specific enough , and contradict themselves.
YOU : much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna.
ME : your clone , has the same DNA you do !!! That is cloning ! I am not a bio-tech person , but If I understand right , that was cloning is -- EXACT COPY of DNA.
If you cannot copyright your DNA , how can you say " much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna."
In a cout of AMERICAN LAW , where is your case , what protects your DNA , if you cannot copyright it ? eithin in name or practise ?
Cited ans only , ANYONE ?
==============================
MORE INFO :
As researchers unlock the secrets of the human genome, an important debate has arisen concerning ownership of the information gathered from genetic research. The very questions that ignite these issues are the very same ones that Steven Miller, a biology teacher at Fremont High School in Oakland, California, is asking his students through an unusual exercise: Miller is getting each of his students to "copyright" their own DNA. All that's required are a camera, an envelope, a stamp and a little saliva.
In 1991, The California Supreme Court decided that a newly discovered cancer cell, known as "Mo," and any profits stemming from innovations relating to the cell were the sole property of the researchers who found and patented it. The man, whose body the cells were originally taken from, had no legal claim to ownership or copyright of the cells and could not demand compensation or other redress. The case, known as the John Moore decision, illustrates the legal and ethical dilemmas society faces in the age of biotechnology. http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/dna_copyright.html
---------------------------------------- -
ME : It is clear you did no research , and answered off the top of your Pirate Logic Brain :
search w/link below to start,, and get back to me with CITED information to back your feeble opinion.
Give me facts , and reason based on facts,, not your suppositions !!!!!
You're essentially saying you're right because you think you're right.
Short ans ,, yes !!
Long ans ,, it is late ,, but i will get back to the rest of your good points latter,, maybe a few days. but i am not ducking you ,, (like the rolling stones do to me.-- one day Kieth , you and me , ukuleles @ 50 paces! )
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
The world is NOT united against copyright infringement.
But the VERY vast majority of "elected officials" , in the world's Democracies,
Are "united against copyright infringement".
Do you dispute that fact?
---------------
Artist and Writers and Inventors and Musicians and Poets are too -
- for the most , at least 90% ,
( and in my opinion it is exactly at : 98.314159292 % ).
So you can certainly say , that as a "political force" in the "body politic" , from local to global ,,
Artist and Writers and Inventors and Musicians and Poets
also are "united against copyright infringement".
-----------------
See you in Court,
see you in Congress.
===============================
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
and those who simply circumvent cost for personal use."
I define that as stealing , so does USA law.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
I could give you links to our lawbooks, but as they are in Dutch, I doubt you have any use for it.
you are good faith-ed.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
ME: I agree . ok we are halfway home
YOU : As a downloader, ---- (me : or really a "free-loader")---- I can't rightfully distinguish whether a source is legal or not.
ME : Bingo !! In USA law "receiving stolen goods" is a serious felony crime.
It does not matter if you did not know it was a "stolen good"
Maybe Dutch law is different , on receiving stolen goods ,, in that you must know it is stolen.
But i doubt it. the burden on the legal system , and the diamond trade would be serious.
-----
Anybody know the record for posts in a thread here ?
Or the longest time of a thread stayed hot and active ?
I like setting records!! :)
-------------------------
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
filesharers do spend MORE money on entertainment than non-filesharers.
non-filesharers."
Even if true : WHO CARES !!
$$$ must be paid to the rights holder directly !!!
, for every use or acquisition, or any type of file share !!!
--- or it is a steal by all legal definition ( in the USA) !!!!
( see definition posts for the word "steal" in all forms)
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
It might take till late tomorrow night,, or longer ,, I like to be deliberate and well read -- for such a worthy opponent -- Really !
-----
Anybody know the record for posts in a thread here ?
Or the longest time of a thread stayed hot and active ?
I like setting records!! :)
-------------------------
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
And for the gazillionth-and-one time. Copyright infringement is not stealing. Never has been, never will be. As THEFT is in a completely different lawbook than copyright ever will reside.
Taking something for nothing, when the rights holder is AGAISNST it is stealing.
If a hungry person "steals" food , so he will not starve to death , it can be argued he did not morally steal. but legally he DID steal,
In some very poor countries this is a real world case issue.
--------------
Main Entry:1steal
Pronunciation: \ˈstēl\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole \ˈstōl\; sto·len \ˈstō-lən\; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal
-----------
a base transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b : to take away by force or unjust means
c : to take surreptitiously or without permission
d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : smuggle
b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring
b: of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard
— steal·able \ˈstē-lə-bəl\ adjective
— steal·er noun
— steal a march on : to gain an advantage on unobserved
— steal one's thunder : to grab attention from another especially by anticipating an idea, plan, or presentation; also
: to claim credit for another's idea
synonyms : steal, pilfer, filch , purloin, mean to take from another without right or without detection.
steal may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things .
pilfer implies stealing repeatedly in small amounts .
filch adds a suggestion of snatching quickly and surreptitiously
.
******purloin stresses removing or carrying off for one's own use or purposes . ******
>>>>ME : Like this citation is "stolen or purloined" by me , but the law says it is fair use,,
so I am granted harbor , by law.
Pirates , are granted no harbor by law.
-------------------------------end
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/st eal
On the post: If Astronomers Can Happily Share The Business With Amateurs, Why Do Some Journalists Get So Upset?
Re: Re: relationship between professional astronomers and amateur astronomers:"
The astro- parties are cool.
What other science has parties by setting up their main tool -- here the telescope -- en mass on the great lawn in Central Park ?
( Hoe could you have a bio-chemistry party? Pepsi & mentos?)
As well there are Astro-communities.
Small towns with very dark skies , where astros live and/or retire to. ( I hope to !)
But really , right , it is very fluid, amateur -pro- serious amateur- retired pro.
And you really do not need a telescope , which for me living in NYC is pretty useless.
But Space.com , and spaceweather.com are
daily stops on the web for me.
----
as far as the journalist issues, maybe later, but i really do not see a hot issue there. I will explain why later.
------------------------
On the post: EFF, Public Citizen And ACLU Ask Judge To Quash Mass Subpoenas From US Copyright Group
Thankfully, it looks like the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU are trying to help out.
"Thankfully, it looks like the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU are trying to help out. "
Me: As I think/hope you know Mike , , the ACLU & co, are arguing a civil liberties point that is tangential to the core case, but not really addressing the matters of that core case. they do that all the time . ( remember the Col. Ollie North case for example.)
I think that is an important point that you missed-- iF i read all correctly.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
ME: so you admit "illegal" or "Pirate". Are you a split
personality? I cannot debate both of you !!
If it is illegal to upload, are you not getting stolen property , in theory , but not in dutch Law.
-------------------
As written about here by mike at least once :
In U.S. law , some things you CAN NOT SELL ,
But can "give away" for free -- no money.
( Sex, "tripper mushrooms", car rides.)
I have no idea how bartering fits in. I mean we all barter things everyday.
"Give me a ride to the store , and i will do the dishes for you." (Think of your own example for sex bartering.)
--------------------------------------------------
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
YOU : "For instance, we, the Dutch, are allowed to download from illegal sources. Uploading is the offense, a civil matter, not a criminal matter, mind you. Like in the US copyright infringement is not a criminal matter by law, but a civil matter."
ME: you are getting sloppy in your words, facts , and opinions. If you do better , we all learn better.
How the weather where you are ?
==============
On the post: If Astronomers Can Happily Share The Business With Amateurs, Why Do Some Journalists Get So Upset?
In astronomy circles ---probably more than other sciences -- there is really no practical "scientific research" difference between pros & amateurs.
An astronomer needs only his/her eyeball , and something to magnify the light -- a telescope -- to do scientific work OR just take pictures.
That is way it is a cool --- and pretty inexpensive--- serious hobby for kids and adults.
Amateur Astronomers are -- and have always been --- a very big part of astronomical visual-light-research.
(Radio & X-ray astronomy needs the big $$ for infrastructure and is a horse of a different color,, but it is still a horse.)
A bio-tech guy ,, needs a big lab, loads of VERY expensive equipment , and liability insurance , (in case he releases a new life form that the goes wild and eats the city of Pittsburgh .)
On the post: If Astronomers Can Happily Share The Business With Amateurs, Why Do Some Journalists Get So Upset?
relationship between professional astronomers and amateur astronomers:"
"where one astronomer talks about the very friendly relationship between professional astronomers and amateur astronomers:"
Me :
as you know mike from carefully reading everything i post here @ techdirt,, Astronomy is my big lifetime hobby( -- why do you always post of topics cited in my comments -- but yet never really reply to me direct ??--- either way I am honored.)
The ONLY difference between amateur Astronomers and "professional" ones, is a contract w/ an institution and a salary.
In astronomy circles ---probably more than other sciences -- there is really no practical "scientific research" difference between pros & amateurs.
Galileo was an amateur astronomer technically.
Most named comets are discovered by amateur Astronomers.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Proprietary Rights Notice for DNA Research Online
Proprietary Rights Notice for DNA Research Online
Copyright © 2010 Kazusa DNA Research Institute.
1. The person using DNA Research Online may view, reproduce or store copies of articles comprising the journal provided that the articles are used only for their personal, non-commercial use. Uses beyond that allowed by the "Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright law require permission of the publisher.
2. For permissions to copy beyond that permitted by the U.S. Copyright Law and for reprints, contact the Copyright Clearance Center. The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service appears in each abstract and full text article.
3. Any uses and or copies of this Journal in whole or in part must include the customary bibliographic citation, including author attribution, date, article title, DNA Research Online, and the URL http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/ and MUST include a copy of the copyright notice.
4. Personal accounts and/or passwords may not be shared.
Institutional Subscribers
Please read the Institutional Site Licence Agreement.
Individual/Personal Subscribers
Please read the Individual User Agreement.
http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/misc/terms.dtl
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: How many copyright infringers resort to violence when they download content?
ME : there is no such thing as "Non-commercial copyright infringement"
Infringement means , some commercial use , some one made $$$,
that I can sue for. ( see link at very end of post )
If there is no $$$ , it is usually -- but not always -- fair use. ( again cited facts only !!! no more face value comments ! Let us really learn together , not just bicker w/o end.)
----------------------
----------------
(It is 5 am in NYC ? why am i here ? need more coffee, and a ciggee. Anybody know how the NY mets did last nite ? I am too busy here to check. [ i think it was an off day , but too busy to check] And what is the deal with Ump and the "perfect game" , can umpires & referees copyright their unique gestures? Search "Groucho Marx " before you answer !)
=================
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lucky-La wsuit
===end ===== of ==== post =====
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Copyright infringement is not counterfeiting.
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lucky-Lawsuit
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
no citions , and you post conflicting points .
You :
Indeed INFRINGEMENT! not STEALING!
Look up the definitions. And notice the difference.
ME : Article here says , $$$ due for INFRINGEMENT.
So "infringement" damages-- just as stealing does in USA law
your move .
----------------------
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lu cky-Lawsuit
Judgment in 'Get Lucky' Lawsuit
June 04, 2010
Lucky Brand Jeans, the Los Angeles–based denim brand, and its parent company, Liz Claiborne, have been ordered to pay a Miami clothing firm $300,000 following the conclusion of a 5-year-old trademark lawsuit.
The final judgment, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Smith in New York on May 28, follows a trial in April where a jury found that Lucky Brand had violated the “Get Lucky” trademark used on a line of teen apparel made by Marcel Fashion Group.
Liz Claiborne launched the lawsuit in 2005, claiming trademark infringement by Marcel and its licensee, Ally Apparel. Liz Claiborne sought a preliminary injunction against Marcel to stop using or licensing the “Get Lucky” trademark.
The lawsuit followed a 2003 contract signed by the two parties in which Liz Claiborne agreed not to use the trademark phrase “Get Lucky” on any of its Lucky Brand products or promotional materials. Marcel registered the trademark in 1986. Lucky Brand was founded in Los Angeles in 1990 and was acquired by Liz Claiborne in 1999.
Liz Claiborne filed its lawsuit because, the company said, Marcel was using clover branding similar to Lucky Brand’s clover branding.
In August 2005, the court denied Liz Claiborne’s preliminary-injunction request. Marcel then filed counterclaims of trademark infringement against Liz Claiborne, resulting in the $300,000 award, which includes punitive damages. In the final judgment, Liz Claiborne waived all rights to appeal.
“This is a complete victory for the little guy,” said Ezra Mizrachi, president of Marcel Fashion Group, in a statement. “Lucky Brand and Liz Claiborne tried to put the “Get Lucky” apparel line out of business with this lawsuit, but instead the jury decided that they are the ones who committed trademark infringement.”—Deborah Belgum
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lucky-Lawsuit
====== ==================
==================
=============
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
And you want to kill them? "
ME :: BACK IT UP WITH cited facts and case law !!!
Words alone do not cut it .
I back up my opinion with citation here in this thread ,, that is why I post articles , or give links.
I take , NOTHING on face values of someones word!
You do not from me ! I will not from you !
---------------------------------------
YOU :
In essence, these so-called pirates are your biggest revenue source.
ME :
HOW is the $$ collected from the pirates ,, and given to the ARTISTs. HOW ?!?!?!?!
Legal down load is OK ,
Itunes and etc,,
but and ILLEGAL download
, by fact of its nature ,
pays no royalties--
that is why it is a PIRATE !!
Your answers do not ad up at all.
BACK it up , citation , court cases , and facts !!!!!
Or quit posting !!!
( because after 300 + comments , the page loads slow ),
--------------------------
-------------------------
SO no more comments w/o facts -- me too.
Let us FORMALIZE , or little debate[s] here.
I hold you to the same fire now , you hold me too.
Clean your keyboard , and get READY to RUMBLE !!!!!!!
FACT w/ citation only to back up points !!!
=====================================
(( I hope Mike has the server space -- maybe he should set up a paywall ? (sic)
I mean i am storing my thesis on copyright @ techdirt for free!?!?!
Right ?!?!
Who owns my words here ?!?!?
Mike , Me , public domain !?!?
Again FACTS w/ citation of court cases.))
=============================
=====================
======e==n==d===of====p=o=s=t======
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying: It's in our DNA!
ME : Ok ( for now, but see below )
YOU :you can't copyright facts (even though there are institutions that try it).
ME : OK , but is not DNA a "unique fact" ? Does that change it ? facts tend to be , date , place, time . Are your fingerprints FACTS? Answer with citation only !!
YOU :And yes I'm 100% sure.
ANS : back it up . We are in FORMAL debate mode. ( now saying you are wrong ,, but I will not cede points w/o proof.)
YOU :btw, if you clone me, my dna is still my dna,
ME : If you cannot copyright it , HOW IS IT YOURS ? Where is the legal protection ?
How Would it be argued in court?
Answers with citations please !!
AS Your ans. are NOT specific enough , and contradict themselves.
YOU : much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna.
ME : your clone , has the same DNA you do !!! That is cloning ! I am not a bio-tech person , but If I understand right , that was cloning is -- EXACT COPY of DNA.
If you cannot copyright your DNA , how can you say " much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna."
In a cout of AMERICAN LAW , where is your case , what protects your DNA , if you cannot copyright it ? eithin in name or practise ?
Cited ans only , ANYONE ?
==============================
MORE INFO :
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/dna_copyright.html
DNA Copyright
The Osgood File (CBS Radio Network): 10/4/01
High school students copyright their own DNA.
As researchers unlock the secrets of the human genome, an important debate has arisen concerning ownership of the information gathered from genetic research. The very questions that ignite these issues are the very same ones that Steven Miller, a biology teacher at Fremont High School in Oakland, California, is asking his students through an unusual exercise: Miller is getting each of his students to "copyright" their own DNA. All that's required are a camera, an envelope, a stamp and a little saliva.
In 1991, The California Supreme Court decided that a newly discovered cancer cell, known as "Mo," and any profits stemming from innovations relating to the cell were the sole property of the researchers who found and patented it. The man, whose body the cells were originally taken from, had no legal claim to ownership or copyright of the cells and could not demand compensation or other redress. The case, known as the John Moore decision, illustrates the legal and ethical dilemmas society faces in the age of biotechnology.
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/dna_copyright.html
---------------------------------------- -
ME : It is clear you did no research , and answered off the top of your Pirate Logic Brain :
search w/link below to start,, and get back to me with CITED information to back your feeble opinion.
Give me facts , and reason based on facts,, not your suppositions !!!!!
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+DNA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client= firefox-a&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___US361
----------------------------------------------
============== ============================
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
You're essentially saying you're right because you think you're right.
Long ans ,, it is late ,, but i will get back to the rest of your good points latter,, maybe a few days. but i am not ducking you ,, (like the rolling stones do to me.-- one day Kieth , you and me , ukuleles @ 50 paces! )
Next >>