For one, I don't believe you can get from the in-flight entertainment system to the avionics. That is such a dumb idea that I have trouble accepting it.
But even if you could, do they really expect us to believe that this penetration wasn't identified and then backtracked to the entertainment system?
A simple crosscheck of the passenger manifests of a couple of the hacked flights would have turned up this guy's name. A Google search would have revealed his occupation.
And no one ever thought to do that basic investigation?
Wikipedia says that Iron Man debuted in 1963, actually.
But do you know what was published in 1959?
That would Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Guess what tech was featured in that novel?
While I'm on the topic, I don't think Mike or Marc caught the fact that many of the claims made in the filing are utter nonsense. I covered this lawsuit a couple days ago, and I noticed that the Iron Man suit was " a fully mechanized suit of body armor" since at least the 1990s. I'm not much of a comic book reader, but I can tell you that the cartoons had suits which fit the description.
There are also graphics which show the various depictions of the Iron Man suit (see my post). Most of the later ones looked like "fully mechanized suit(s) of body armor".
This lawsuit isn't just ridiculous, it is also utterly bogus.
Coincidentally, I live in the area and I find this story reassuring.
This just goes to show how safe Prince William County is; the police have so little to do that they have to manufacture the crimes before they can catch the criminals.
What's the problem with making copies of that book? It's under a CC license. Where's the hypocrite in using a book exactly the way the author intended, with his permission?
We're discussing different things. You are talking distribution of copies, while I am talking about Techdirt negotiating a license with third parties.
One is covered under fair use but I'm not sure the other is covered as well.
Fair use only covers use; it does not transfer control of a copyrighted work. And if techdirt does not control a quote then they cannot license that quote to third parties.
"we treat our own articles, written by staffers here, to be public domain"
I'm not sure you legally have the right to do that, not when the article includes quoted text. While fair use gives you the right to quote text from other sources, it doesn't enable you to attach a new license to the quoted text.
For example, Techdirt's deal with the service Repost.us is arguably copyright infringement, and the idea that you release articles under a CC0 license is similarly suspect.
Or am I wrong?
P.S. I don't mean to beat up on Techdirt, but this post seemed like a good time to bring up a point that has been puzzling me for a few months now.
That is in fact the Supreme Court case which created the idea of the First Sale Doctrine. I seriously doubt this Wolters Kluwers bogus license is going to stand up in court.
"US copyright law only applies in the US. The US court can't realistically order Google to remove the video in other countries, since US courts don't have jurisdiction there."
On the post: Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
If the photo was taken during the marriage then Rosie has the right to post it.
Then again, IANAL so could someone back me up on this?
On the post: Sherlock Holmes And The Case Of The Never Ending Copyright Dispute
According to the estate's website, the US agent is based in Evanston, a suburb of Chicago.
And the estate is suing in New Mexico. I'll let you do the math.
On the post: Sherlock Holmes And The Case Of The Never Ending Copyright Dispute
About that movie
And did anyone else notice that all of the infringement claims mention the book, but not the movie?
On the post: FBI Investigating Chris Roberts For Hacking Flight WiFi, Taking Control Of Engines
For one, I don't believe you can get from the in-flight entertainment system to the avionics. That is such a dumb idea that I have trouble accepting it.
But even if you could, do they really expect us to believe that this penetration wasn't identified and then backtracked to the entertainment system?
A simple crosscheck of the passenger manifests of a couple of the hacked flights would have turned up this guy's name. A Google search would have revealed his occupation.
And no one ever thought to do that basic investigation?
On the post: Comic Artists Claim Copyright On Metallic Suits And The Three Point Landing
Re:
I think they intentionally misunderstood that point. This is copyright trolling, pure and simple.
On the post: Comic Artists Claim Copyright On Metallic Suits And The Three Point Landing
Re: Wait...
But do you know what was published in 1959?
That would Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Guess what tech was featured in that novel?
While I'm on the topic, I don't think Mike or Marc caught the fact that many of the claims made in the filing are utter nonsense. I covered this lawsuit a couple days ago, and I noticed that the Iron Man suit was " a fully mechanized suit of body armor" since at least the 1990s. I'm not much of a comic book reader, but I can tell you that the cartoons had suits which fit the description.
There are also graphics which show the various depictions of the Iron Man suit (see my post). Most of the later ones looked like "fully mechanized suit(s) of body armor".
This lawsuit isn't just ridiculous, it is also utterly bogus.
On the post: Air Canada Blocks Access To Any Google Hosted RSS Feed (Including Techdirt) For No Good Reason
Re: Re:
On the post: Air Canada Blocks Access To Any Google Hosted RSS Feed (Including Techdirt) For No Good Reason
Are you sure that you have this the right way around?
So far as I can see the active name is Feedburner, not Feedproxy.
On the post: Randy Queen Keeps Digging: Issues DMCA Takedown On Blog Post About Him Issuing DMCA Takedowns
On the post: Prosecutors In 'Sexting' Case Apparently Obtained Search Warrant To Photograph Teen's Penis
This just goes to show how safe Prince William County is; the police have so little to do that they have to manufacture the crimes before they can catch the criminals.
On the post: Hypocritical Authors Guild Photocopies Author's Book While Claiming That Scanning Works Is Infringement
Re:
Are we talking about this book, which is freely available from Cornell U.?
http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/14142
What's the problem with making copies of that book? It's under a CC license. Where's the hypocrite in using a book exactly the way the author intended, with his permission?
On the post: German Newspapers Want Google To Pay Them For Appearing In Search Results (Even As They Try To Rank Higher)
http://the-digital-reader.com/2014/05/12/spain-wants-to-kill-of-spanish-news-sites-via-a-googl e-tax/
Does anyone know if it has passed or been defeated?
On the post: How Do You Know The Public Domain Is In Trouble? It Requires A 52-Page Handbook To Determine If Something Is Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Do You Know The Public Domain Is In Trouble? It Requires A 52-Page Handbook To Determine If Something Is Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Do You Know The Public Domain Is In Trouble? It Requires A 52-Page Handbook To Determine If Something Is Public Domain
Re: Re:
One is covered under fair use but I'm not sure the other is covered as well.
Fair use only covers use; it does not transfer control of a copyrighted work. And if techdirt does not control a quote then they cannot license that quote to third parties.
On the post: How Do You Know The Public Domain Is In Trouble? It Requires A 52-Page Handbook To Determine If Something Is Public Domain
I'm not sure you legally have the right to do that, not when the article includes quoted text. While fair use gives you the right to quote text from other sources, it doesn't enable you to attach a new license to the quoted text.
For example, Techdirt's deal with the service Repost.us is arguably copyright infringement, and the idea that you release articles under a CC0 license is similarly suspect.
Or am I wrong?
P.S. I don't mean to beat up on Techdirt, but this post seemed like a good time to bring up a point that has been puzzling me for a few months now.
On the post: Accepting Amazon's DRM Makes It Impossible To Challenge Its Monopoly
"Accepting Amazon's DRM Makes It Impossible To Challenge Its Monopoly"
Amazon at one point had a 90% of the ebook market. Now they have considerably less (50% to 60%). Clearly the monopoly can be challenged, DRM ro no.
On the post: Publisher 'DRMs' Physical Legal Textbook About 'Property,' Undermines Property And First Sale Concepts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus
That is in fact the Supreme Court case which created the idea of the First Sale Doctrine. I seriously doubt this Wolters Kluwers bogus license is going to stand up in court.
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
On the post: Innocence Of Muslims Actress Files Contempt Charges Against Google For Not Making Movie Completely Disappear Worldwide
Someone needs to go tell ICE about this ...
Next >>