Interestingly, the dial telephone was invented to get around the "net neutrality" issue of the late 19th century. Stroger, the guy who invented the dial telephone, was a Kansas City undertaker who was convinced that the local operator was directing calls intended for him to his competitor (who happened to be the operator's brother-in-law). Bell didn't adopt the system nationwide until 1924.
Some sporting events (high diving, figure skating, etc) involve the tabulation of judges scores rather than factual information like times, distances, etc. Would that make the scores copyrightable?
If you kill someone, you are "taking their life", so that's really stealing right? So murder should also be called theft. Why argue about semantics?
If you try hard enough, I'm sure all crime could be redefined as theft (defamation = stealing someone's reputation, assault = stealing someone's health/safety, etc). Eventually, theft just becomes a synonym for crime and loses any specific meaning it had.
Perhaps what is confusing to some is that this is the British music licensing system (BPI instead of RIAA, PRS instead of ASCAP), though I suspect the American system is just as byzantine (perhaps more so).
Given the likely small advertising budget a documentary about economics would have, I suspect flipping the release windows is a way to generate some much needed buzz. Even if it works (iTunes release stirs up interest and lots of people go see it in theaters), the theater chains will just say it's an exception because it's a documentary and it wouldn't work with a big-budget blockbuster.
I don't believe NHL hockey was televised in NYC in 1964. I know for sure it was not televised nationally in the US until the 1970s. And NYC is to far from Canada to pick up the CBC.
It IS definitely a contract violation, in fact, the dispensers may be given away/sold at a loss, since they know there is guaranteed income from selling the refills. However, it is probably very difficult (and expensive) to ENFORCE that contract, since you'd have to send out people to thousands of washrooms to collect evidence and file thousands of separate lawsuits. It's much more efficient to design the dispensers so they only work with your paper and then go after anyone who makes paper specifically to work in your dispensers. The trademark case is pretty weak though; it would have been better to patent the dispenser/paper design and then get the copycats on patent infringement.
I suppose they could patent the formula that they used to calculate the geophysical center of Europe, but if someone else is claiming to be the center they would be using a different formula anyway, so what's the point.
Nobody said EVERYONE should do that, but the ones that want to should have that option. This is about ASCAP vs Creative Commons, not MPAA vs file-sharing.
The article notes that it seems unlikely that any defendants will show up in court to defend themselves or to protest the lawsuit, since they haven't done anything yet. So, basically, the lawsuit is allowed because there's no one to contest it, because who's going to contest such a lawsuit?
Can someone go to court and claim to represent John & Jane Doe or XYZ Company? You could point out that your clients have done nothing wrong and the plaintiff is wasting the court's valuable time and demand that the case be dismissed (and of course, that they pay for your legal fee).
You can copyright the article and you can copyright the program (separately) but you can't copyright a technique. If the technique was unique enough, you could potentially patent it (though you would have violated your own patent when you wrote the program for your employer and presumably you would be liable for that violation). The bad news is, you can't stop the former employer from using the program you wrote. The good news is, you can continue using that technique in programs you write yourself or for future employers without fear of your old employer claiming copyright infringement.
You can claim copyright on anything about the new printing that is unique to it (cover art, introduction, page layout, font choice, spelling corrections, etc). That's why organizations like Project Gutenberg are careful to use originals as source material rather than reprints which may still be under copyright protection.
1) I believe if it was worded "Pay what you think it's worth" rather than "Pay what you want" it might change the results (especially if a suggested price is given like "similar items typically sell for around $10"). I don't ever WANT to pay for something, but I am willing to give what I think the fair price should be.
2) I believe the "pay what you want"+charity had lower participation but higher average revenue than pure "pay what you want" because the "freeloaders" (people who paid zero or close to it) would be somewhat discouraged from participating (taking a free photo from a successful business is one thing, taking it from a charity is another).
3) Personally, I am more likely to participate in this sort of charity thing if I can choose the charity (even from a fairly short list of 4 or 5 charities). I don't like having others choose where my donation should go, and there are some "charities" (eg PETA) that I would rather die then let have any of my hard-earned money.
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of blatant misinformation spread around against orphan works legislation, who insist that it's really a way for companies to use works without paying for them. Of course, the various proposals for orphan works laws make it clear this is not the case. They all require the potential user to conduct a very real and very serious search for the copyright holder.
While that may be true, I'm still concerned that the company who performs this copyright search on an orphan work (for example Google in the case of GoogleBooks) would become the new copyright holder for that work. Those works should enter the public domain if the copyright holder cannot be found where they can be used by anyone.
I'm sure Mythbusters will not be sued. They are very careful about these kinds of things (bluring out brand names on products under test, etc) and probably vet everything through Discovery's legal department before going to air. Remember the RFID tag show that was never aired?
Free over-the-air television needs to be outlawed because it creates confusion in the marketplace; people will think they should get cable TV for free.
Free drinking fountain water needs to be outlawed because it creates confusion in the marketplace; people will think they should get bottled water for free.
Hitch-hiking needs to be outlawed because it creates confusion in the marketplace; people will think they should get taxi rides for free.
On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed
Re: There's less content
On the post: Back When The Senate Tried To Ban Dial Telephones
Dialing for net neutrality
On the post: If Financial Ratings Are Opinions, Would Reporting On Those Opinions Be Factual?
Sports scores?
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Murder = Theft
If you try hard enough, I'm sure all crime could be redefined as theft (defamation = stealing someone's reputation, assault = stealing someone's health/safety, etc). Eventually, theft just becomes a synonym for crime and loses any specific meaning it had.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Re: Re: Weak argument
Perhaps what is confusing to some is that this is the British music licensing system (BPI instead of RIAA, PRS instead of ASCAP), though I suspect the American system is just as byzantine (perhaps more so).
On the post: Freakonomics Flips The Window: Releasing Movie Online Before In Theaters
Promotional tool?
On the post: Copyright Getting In The Way Of Historical Realism On Mad Men [Updated]
trading one historical inaccuracy for another
On the post: If You Don't Get The Matching Brand Paper Towel Out Of A Dispenser In A Restroom... Is That Trademark Infringement?
Re: Wrong lawsuit?
On the post: Patenting The Geophysical Center Of Europe?
formula patent?
On the post: Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
Re: Re: Re: why?
On the post: Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers
Someone should contest it
Can someone go to court and claim to represent John & Jane Doe or XYZ Company? You could point out that your clients have done nothing wrong and the plaintiff is wasting the court's valuable time and demand that the case be dismissed (and of course, that they pay for your legal fee).
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Censorship
On the post: US Copyright Group Caught Red Handed Copying Competitor's Website
Most companies don't have in-house web designers
1) USCG hired the same web design company as CEG (and that company decided they could get paid twice for the same work)
or
2) USCG hired a very amateur/shady web designer and told them "make it like this web site" and they took it very literally.
On the post: An Open iPhone App Market That Doesn't Require Jailbreaking... And Which Apple Can't Stop
Re: Will they work on PC's, too?
On the post: How Is It That New Copyrights Are Being Claimed On Work Done By An Artist Who Died 70 Years Ago?
Re: Re: Re: Clearly
On the post: Pay What You Want Works Much Better With A Charity Component
A few thoughts
2) I believe the "pay what you want"+charity had lower participation but higher average revenue than pure "pay what you want" because the "freeloaders" (people who paid zero or close to it) would be somewhat discouraged from participating (taking a free photo from a successful business is one thing, taking it from a charity is another).
3) Personally, I am more likely to participate in this sort of charity thing if I can choose the charity (even from a fairly short list of 4 or 5 charities). I don't like having others choose where my donation should go, and there are some "charities" (eg PETA) that I would rather die then let have any of my hard-earned money.
On the post: How Big An Issue Are Orphan Works?
Public Domain?
While that may be true, I'm still concerned that the company who performs this copyright search on an orphan work (for example Google in the case of GoogleBooks) would become the new copyright holder for that work. Those works should enter the public domain if the copyright holder cannot be found where they can be used by anyone.
On the post: Louis Vuitton Strikes Again: Shuts Down Art Exhibit That Commented On LV Trademarks
Mythbusters is careful
On the post: The Lack Of A Billion Dollar Pureplay Open Source Software Company Shows The Market Is Working Properly
Pureplay?
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re:
Free drinking fountain water needs to be outlawed because it creates confusion in the marketplace; people will think they should get bottled water for free.
Hitch-hiking needs to be outlawed because it creates confusion in the marketplace; people will think they should get taxi rides for free.
Next >>