I am the minister of the interior in Nigeria. I have 324983 b-jillion dollars for inheritance you are got. In order to process moniez I needz your account infos. For the bank. Then I will transfer 5 of american dollars into account, then please send check for 10,000 dollar to me, then I will deposit another dollar or 5 in swiss francs to account of your cousin's, uncle's, 3rd roommate in swiss city of belgium. Then please send check to me for 7.5 american pesos and then I will transfer the ba-jillions to an offshore account in america for transfer funds to check bank on the water in rio.
Of course - I might add.. In reality... This will likely get the artist's name known and may well - in the end, result in MORE sales. Due to 'free' advertising.
I admit, I like the picture, it's certainly artistic. I'm not a particular fan of 'cowboy' art, but I know someone who is and some art like that would certainly interest them.
"They can certainly point out that these stickers don't harm the market for the original though."
Maybe...
Not sure that would be so easy. Would part of the potential market have been licensing use of the image for auto inspection stickers? If so, it most certainly has significantly impacted his potential 'market' for licensing sales.
PLUS in addition to that - conceptually, the artist could say that since the image is now 'common' on Auto Inspection stickers, that it will be harder to sell the original image as it's not really 'unique' and most would associate the image with the auto inspection sticker.
So instead of a comment about the 'cool looking cowboy picture' on the wall, the comment would be 'why do you have a more detailed copy of the auto inspection sticker' - etc..
Kinda like the difference between having an original painting of a Cowboy as 'art' - in comparison to having an image of the Marlboro man on the wall. Wouldn't it? I think they could make that argument. Overly popular 'pop-art' and it's value is much different from original/unique art - I would think.
It was 24 songs, the final judgment was 54,000.00
$2250.00 per infringement.
In this case then, with 4.5 Million 'infringements' - the amount they could sue for - AND use the Jammie Thomas case to establish the precedent would be: $10,125,000,000
"And what exactly what would be the reasoning behind such a law? Respect for the color of authority or some other nebulous nonsense? I'm frequently amazed by the number of comments I see online from Europeans who openly mock the US tradition & constitutionality of our 1st amendment, as if its some anachronistic bit of uselessness. Its clear to me that such people don't "get it", and how blind acceptance of whatever authorities dictate is such a mistake. Yet this seems to be the norm over there."
But said mocking will only continue - until the point it's no longer legal - and just give that time, soon enough it will be illegal to not only flip off a cop, but to flip-off a CEO or a Banker - that'll get you time too.
Just mark my words.
I think Orwell would be amazed at how bad it's getting now.
The thought police are out in full force. Only problem is - who watches those that are doing the watching?
What does technology have to do with it? Just because it may be easy to do something doesn't make it right. Infamous Joe, what do you think the charge would be if you stopped a politician on the street, then tied him up and held him against his will in a van for 30 mins?
80 years.
Now if it was you or I in the Van - even if we were killed after the fact; probably 8 years - Max. Probably less.
But, what strikes me as most interesting through the blatantly ridiculous claims throughout the article from Microsoft's folks and its stand-ins at the BSA, is that all the company is really doing here is spending a ton of money to convince people to look at cheaper (or free) alternatives.
Recently, I loaded Ubuntu LTS up on my PC. But the difference this time is that it's no longer my 'secondary' OS, it's the primary now.
Other than gaming, I have little; if any, need for Windows. While I like Windows7 and use it at work - I can't see paying over $200.00 for Ultimate all things considered. I'll continue to run my copy of XP for gaming and that's it. The rest - Unbuntu does just as well, if not better.
If I ever switch to console gaming, instead of PC gaming - Windows won't even be on my PC.
However; if Win7 was say... $75 or maybe $99 - I'd buy it. But $200? No - I'm patient, by the time I really NEED it, I bet the cost will be down - but the real question is: Will I ever really *need* it?
I cut my cable for quite some time... went with NetFlix.
The cable company came back offering me a real good deal - so I took it, but I'm tempted to just go back with NetFlix again.
Thing is; I don't care for all the 30/60 minute 'episode' type of TV shows, like 24, CSI, Survivor, or whatever. I don't care to keep up with the drama or whatever - because by and large it's pretty unoriginal.
I like movies from time to time and even not a whole lot of that. It puts me in a position where NetFlix is a better deal. Otherwise, if it wasn't for the History Channel and a few other similar shows - I definitely wouldn't have cable.
But overall - by and large the reason I *don't* watch as much TV is the blasted commercials. I feel like I'm just watching advertisements most of the time and not the show. My attention span can get short on a lot of shows - because they just aren't that interesting.
Wait now - all other things aside the customers are paying for 'service' that includes 'Fox'. So how is there a legal issue?
I mean, if I go but a movie, but then watch it on the web; it's legal right? Since along with buying the movie I bought the 'rights' to watch the movie from an IP standpoint... right?
Oh BTW: If I was interviewing people and Googled someone and found a video of that nature for the job candidate - their resume would go right back in the 'hahaha' stack or the shredder.
"after she posted to YouTube a video of herself and some friends making fun of another girl at school."
In 10 years, or maybe sooner - someone will be sitting at an interview for a job.
The interviewer will remember that YouTube video and someone will be sent packing. I'd request they leave it up, actually I'd copy it myself and post it using their real name - so that google searches find it.
A childish prank like this, could very well cost someone a job - or more.
On the post: Computer Techs Turn Normal Virus Removal Into Multi-Million Dollar Scam
On the post: Free Speech Isn't Free: Court Barring Access To Brief About Free Speech
On the post: Photographer Sues State Of Texas For Using Image From His Photograph On Auto Inspection Stickers
I admit, I like the picture, it's certainly artistic. I'm not a particular fan of 'cowboy' art, but I know someone who is and some art like that would certainly interest them.
On the post: Photographer Sues State Of Texas For Using Image From His Photograph On Auto Inspection Stickers
Maybe...
Not sure that would be so easy. Would part of the potential market have been licensing use of the image for auto inspection stickers? If so, it most certainly has significantly impacted his potential 'market' for licensing sales.
PLUS in addition to that - conceptually, the artist could say that since the image is now 'common' on Auto Inspection stickers, that it will be harder to sell the original image as it's not really 'unique' and most would associate the image with the auto inspection sticker.
So instead of a comment about the 'cool looking cowboy picture' on the wall, the comment would be 'why do you have a more detailed copy of the auto inspection sticker' - etc..
Kinda like the difference between having an original painting of a Cowboy as 'art' - in comparison to having an image of the Marlboro man on the wall. Wouldn't it? I think they could make that argument. Overly popular 'pop-art' and it's value is much different from original/unique art - I would think.
On the post: Photographer Sues State Of Texas For Using Image From His Photograph On Auto Inspection Stickers
Well, if you use the Jammie Thomas case as a precedent...
According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
It was 24 songs, the final judgment was 54,000.00
$2250.00 per infringement.
In this case then, with 4.5 Million 'infringements' - the amount they could sue for - AND use the Jammie Thomas case to establish the precedent would be: $10,125,000,000
On the post: Police End Up Paying $4k To Guy They Gave Bogus Traffic Tickets To After He Flipped Them Off
But said mocking will only continue - until the point it's no longer legal - and just give that time, soon enough it will be illegal to not only flip off a cop, but to flip-off a CEO or a Banker - that'll get you time too.
Just mark my words.
I think Orwell would be amazed at how bad it's getting now.
The thought police are out in full force. Only problem is - who watches those that are doing the watching?
On the post: 30 Months In Prison For Denial Of Service Hit On Politicians' Websites
80 years.
Now if it was you or I in the Van - even if we were killed after the fact; probably 8 years - Max. Probably less.
On the post: 30 Months In Prison For Denial Of Service Hit On Politicians' Websites
On the post: Microsoft's Anti-Piracy Efforts: Millions Spent Driving People To Open Source Software
Recently, I loaded Ubuntu LTS up on my PC. But the difference this time is that it's no longer my 'secondary' OS, it's the primary now.
Other than gaming, I have little; if any, need for Windows. While I like Windows7 and use it at work - I can't see paying over $200.00 for Ultimate all things considered. I'll continue to run my copy of XP for gaming and that's it. The rest - Unbuntu does just as well, if not better.
If I ever switch to console gaming, instead of PC gaming - Windows won't even be on my PC.
However; if Win7 was say... $75 or maybe $99 - I'd buy it. But $200? No - I'm patient, by the time I really NEED it, I bet the cost will be down - but the real question is: Will I ever really *need* it?
On the post: Security Consultants Claim New Terrorist Bombs May Mean No More In-Flight WiFi
On the post: Erin Andrews Trying To Takedown Nude Images Using Copyright She 'Bought'
On the post: Pizza Shop Sues Former Employee For 'Stealing' Recipe
If you pay your employees like crap - expect this.
On the post: Turns Out TV Cord Cutters Are, In Fact, Young, Educated And Employed
The cable company came back offering me a real good deal - so I took it, but I'm tempted to just go back with NetFlix again.
Thing is; I don't care for all the 30/60 minute 'episode' type of TV shows, like 24, CSI, Survivor, or whatever. I don't care to keep up with the drama or whatever - because by and large it's pretty unoriginal.
I like movies from time to time and even not a whole lot of that. It puts me in a position where NetFlix is a better deal. Otherwise, if it wasn't for the History Channel and a few other similar shows - I definitely wouldn't have cable.
But overall - by and large the reason I *don't* watch as much TV is the blasted commercials. I feel like I'm just watching advertisements most of the time and not the show. My attention span can get short on a lot of shows - because they just aren't that interesting.
On the post: 68,000 Speeding Fines May Need To Be Refunded In Australia Due To Faulty Cameras
On the post: Court Strikes Down Overly Broad Massachusetts 'Harmful To Minors' Law
And I guess that's why we have so many rights being infringed upon.
On the post: Fox Accuses Cablevision Of Telling People To Go To 'Illegal' Sites To Watch Games Fox Is Blocking
I mean, if I go but a movie, but then watch it on the web; it's legal right? Since along with buying the movie I bought the 'rights' to watch the movie from an IP standpoint... right?
On the post: Yet Another Reminder That You Don't Own Your Ebooks: B&N Nook Deletes Files, Blames User
No calls to tech support needed - PLUS; he would really own it.
If it was something like a reference book, it could have well been needed in a timely manner. E-books offer less value than a real book - still.
On the post: Who 'Owns' A Twitter Account: Employer Or Employee?
On the post: Student's Off-Campus YouTube Bullying Of Another Student Protected Free Speech
On the post: Student's Off-Campus YouTube Bullying Of Another Student Protected Free Speech
In 10 years, or maybe sooner - someone will be sitting at an interview for a job.
The interviewer will remember that YouTube video and someone will be sent packing. I'd request they leave it up, actually I'd copy it myself and post it using their real name - so that google searches find it.
A childish prank like this, could very well cost someone a job - or more.
Next >>