I love how the PIPG's lawyer cited a LV court case to back his claim of fair use and parody. Absolutely priceless.
"Lastly, the artwork clearly is a fair use under 15 U.S.C 1125(c)(3)(A), and a parody protected under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii). See also Loius Vuitton Malletier vs. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC. 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)."
Jump forward 50 years when e-books are the norm and some newer technology (whatever that may be)is looking to replace them
Maybe nobody will care about e-books 50 years from now, but I do ... Someone worked really hard to make the language just right, just the way they wanted it. They were so sure of it that they spent countless hours typing it out, editing it, moving paragraphs from here to there before they finally hit the save button and made the read-only copy available to the masses. So for a literature-crazed person like me, it's just not permanent enough.
"Gay no Wikipedia!? I was about to search something fucking bitch.. ["The page 'Something fucking bitch' does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." Incidentally, the first result is "Flavor of Love (season 1)"]"
I don't think I've ever laughed this hard while reading Techdirt. Nice job Mr. Carab.
I really can't believe that a lawyer has actually taken this on. No where do I see that ebay is interfering with the auction. Lets look at it this way.
You go to a traditional auction house because you've seen an item you're interested in. You go to the auction with a predetermined maximum anount of money you're willing to spend on that item. As the bidding starts, you don't bid that maximum amount right away, you bid the minimum possible and only increase it when someone else has out bid you. If things work out in your favor, you've purchased the item for much less than what you have set as your maximum bid for that item.
Here's another example, you participate in an auction over the phone, speaking on the phone with a representative from the auction house. You start bidding on an item and tell the person on the other end of the phone, who is submitting your bids for you, that you don't want to bid more than a certain amount for this item, but you tell the person to keep bidding for you as long as the current bid is below that maximum amount. Again, if things work out in your favor, you've purchased the item for much less than what you had set your maximum bid to.
It seems to me that this is exactly what ebay is doing. When in an auction house, the seller has no idea what I have set my maximum bid to, so when I purchase the item for less than my maximum the seller is none the wiser that I was willing to spend more than I actually did. Just because ebay provides a means to set your maximum, it in no way suggests that this amount is the actual bid. The actual bid is the increment set for the auction above the previous bid.
Hopefully the judge will have the common sense to see right through this and dismiss the case right away.
"The idea is to keep employees from feeling chained to their smartphones, and to send a message to bosses that it’s not reasonable to expect employees to be reachable at night, according to the Allgemeine Zeitung."
I don't know, but after reading that quote it seems to me that the problem was with management sending emails to their employees. Instead of disabling the blackberries, just tell your managers to stop sending emails after hours. Goes right back to my original point.
I've only got 3 domains, and at the moment they're all registered with GoDaddy. I've also got an SSL certificate for one of the domains from them. I've already started the process of moving them, and plan to finalize the move by the 29th. Among my reasons for moving include their initial support of SOPA, as well as their half-hearted reversal, but the other main reason I'm leaving is because they continue to accept the domain transfers of domains seized by the ICE division of homeland security. In my opinion, if they're truly opposed to internet censorship then when the DOJ asks them to accept these transfers they would simply tell them no.
Here's the problem with your analogy, someone who gets educated in the field of genetically altered seeds isn't going to go looking for work in Congress, they're going to go looking for work in the private sector with a firm that deals with genetically altered seeds.
Someone who goes looking for work in Congress will most likely have gotten educated in political science (why the hell its called a science is beyond me).
The problem is that once those in Congress who have been educated in poly-sci have shown that they're willing to make backroom deals for certain industries (they have no background in that industry other than greasing palms with it) when their tenure in Congress is up they tend to move into that industry, in an upper management decision-making role.
On the other side of the coin, most people who end up in upper management roles in big industry have not been educated in the specifics of that industry, they have been educated in "business" in general, and for the most part, if they had to make decisions that would affect their product directly, their product would fail (they leave those decisions to the people educated in the specific field). When they see a need to sway legislation in their favor to stifle competition, and lobbying alone isn't netting the results they desire, they themselves run for office, in order to help the industry (or specific company) that they left, many times remaining on the board of said company.
That is how the revolving door begins, once their tenure is up in one, they move to the other, then back, lather, rinse, repeat. These people are not educated in the nitty gritty details that make their particular industry function, they are upper management whose job function is generic and can be moved from one industry to another with no noticable difference, from the recording indusrty, to the movie industry, to big pharma, to big oil, so on and so on. And that is why your analogy, and your argument in general is an epic FAIL!
I'm going to patent, copyright, trademark, or whatever the hell else I need to do, the concept of building a mall out of building materials. Then I can charge license fees to every mall owner in the country.
Ok, lets think about this for a second. FOIA was put in place so that the American public can have access to government documents. With the DOJ asking for permission to LIE when it receives FOIA requests, it might as well be saying "Hey, lets just get rid of this stupid FOIA thing". If they are granted permission to lie about it, we MIGHT AS WELL get rid of it and stop fooling ourselves already.
Its funny that this post would be made today. Earlier today, when I first got to work, I tried to click in the crystal box on the link for the post about Nintendo.
Because where I work they are so overly opposed to social networking sites twitter is blocked, as well as facebook. But because the people in charge of setting up the filters have no idea what their doing Mike's article about Nintendo was blocked because the word Twitter was in the title.
I did a simple test and it turns out that here at my work if you type the word twitter into google and hit the search button, all the results are filtered as well.
So lets route around them, and stop using sites that use verisign. Tell the sites we don't like the practices of verisign and until they stop using verisign, we're going to stop using them.
I'm a network admin, and about a year ago we had certain emails subpeonaed by the FBI, emails dating back over ten years, specific to one particular vendor, to and/or from anyone and everyone, past or present in the company that may have had communications with this vendor. It took me and one other admin a grand total of a day and a half to sort through our Exchange server and backup tapes and provide the FBI with every email they requested.
Oh, and it didn't cost us a penny for paper or printer consumables, we delivered the emails on a DVD. Thousand's of dollars to perform this request? Yeah right, I WISH I made that much money. I wouldn't have to work any more.
"I could then go off on his "theaters are in the business of selling seats, not content", but it is so blatantly idiotic that I would never know when to stop."
Oh really?!
Well here is an example of theaters doing something Mike has been saying they need to do for a while now, offer a better experience, part of the CwF+RtB concept.
(untitled comment)
In your face
"Lastly, the artwork clearly is a fair use under 15 U.S.C 1125(c)(3)(A), and a parody protected under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii). See also Loius Vuitton Malletier vs. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC. 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)."
Re:
Maybe nobody will care about e-books 50 years from now, but I do ... Someone worked really hard to make the language just right, just the way they wanted it. They were so sure of it that they spent countless hours typing it out, editing it, moving paragraphs from here to there before they finally hit the save button and made the read-only copy available to the masses. So for a literature-crazed person like me, it's just not permanent enough.
Re: Is it just me....
Too Funny!
I don't think I've ever laughed this hard while reading Techdirt. Nice job Mr. Carab.
Hackaday
http://hackaday.com/2012/01/18/stop-the-internet-blacklist-legislation/
Where's the common sense
You go to a traditional auction house because you've seen an item you're interested in. You go to the auction with a predetermined maximum anount of money you're willing to spend on that item. As the bidding starts, you don't bid that maximum amount right away, you bid the minimum possible and only increase it when someone else has out bid you. If things work out in your favor, you've purchased the item for much less than what you have set as your maximum bid for that item.
Here's another example, you participate in an auction over the phone, speaking on the phone with a representative from the auction house. You start bidding on an item and tell the person on the other end of the phone, who is submitting your bids for you, that you don't want to bid more than a certain amount for this item, but you tell the person to keep bidding for you as long as the current bid is below that maximum amount. Again, if things work out in your favor, you've purchased the item for much less than what you had set your maximum bid to.
It seems to me that this is exactly what ebay is doing. When in an auction house, the seller has no idea what I have set my maximum bid to, so when I purchase the item for less than my maximum the seller is none the wiser that I was willing to spend more than I actually did. Just because ebay provides a means to set your maximum, it in no way suggests that this amount is the actual bid. The actual bid is the increment set for the auction above the previous bid.
Hopefully the judge will have the common sense to see right through this and dismiss the case right away.
Re: Re: Here's a novel idea
I don't know, but after reading that quote it seems to me that the problem was with management sending emails to their employees. Instead of disabling the blackberries, just tell your managers to stop sending emails after hours. Goes right back to my original point.
Leaving for good
Here's a novel idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
Someone who goes looking for work in Congress will most likely have gotten educated in political science (why the hell its called a science is beyond me).
The problem is that once those in Congress who have been educated in poly-sci have shown that they're willing to make backroom deals for certain industries (they have no background in that industry other than greasing palms with it) when their tenure in Congress is up they tend to move into that industry, in an upper management decision-making role.
On the other side of the coin, most people who end up in upper management roles in big industry have not been educated in the specifics of that industry, they have been educated in "business" in general, and for the most part, if they had to make decisions that would affect their product directly, their product would fail (they leave those decisions to the people educated in the specific field). When they see a need to sway legislation in their favor to stifle competition, and lobbying alone isn't netting the results they desire, they themselves run for office, in order to help the industry (or specific company) that they left, many times remaining on the board of said company.
That is how the revolving door begins, once their tenure is up in one, they move to the other, then back, lather, rinse, repeat. These people are not educated in the nitty gritty details that make their particular industry function, they are upper management whose job function is generic and can be moved from one industry to another with no noticable difference, from the recording indusrty, to the movie industry, to big pharma, to big oil, so on and so on. And that is why your analogy, and your argument in general is an epic FAIL!
I've got it
*sits back watching the coin just roll in*
(untitled comment)
Bad Filters
Because where I work they are so overly opposed to social networking sites twitter is blocked, as well as facebook. But because the people in charge of setting up the filters have no idea what their doing Mike's article about Nintendo was blocked because the word Twitter was in the title.
I did a simple test and it turns out that here at my work if you type the word twitter into google and hit the search button, all the results are filtered as well.
Re: Re: _sigh_
Just ridiculous
Oh, and it didn't cost us a penny for paper or printer consumables, we delivered the emails on a DVD. Thousand's of dollars to perform this request? Yeah right, I WISH I made that much money. I wouldn't have to work any more.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Huh??!!
Oh really?!
Well here is an example of theaters doing something Mike has been saying they need to do for a while now, offer a better experience, part of the CwF+RtB concept.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/nj_theaters_to_be_redesigned_t.html
How about theaters offering "dinner and a movie" all under one roof without having to leave your seat.
Kinda dispels YOUR AC point!
Re: Re: Re: Huh??!!
Huh??!!
More comments from Cloksin >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Cloksin.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt