Oh, it’s BETTER than that. Not only is it defamation to falsely claim something like that about people in a way that can cause actual harm (physical, financial and reputational), the fact that it’s TRUE is an absolute defense. And court records are public records.
If he takes this to court he risks creating an official declaration in public records that his deputies are in fact members of criminal gangs. Because the best defense in a defamation case is the fact the statements were true, and the discovery phase would be BRUTAL for him.
If it’s accessible under FOIA it’s not confidential. It can’t be. Otherwise you could make FOIA requests for other people’s SSNs, login passwords, etc.
This. Calling for people to pursue legitimate grievances using proper procedures though school-approved official channels is not disruption of the school.
If it were, then ANY communication to the school of anything but fawning praise would also be disruption - even asking for a class schedule or campus map.
If NYC ever finally has enough and decides to find a different policing option than the NYPD, I fully expect a large portion of the NYPD to simply ignore the disbandment order, and ramp up their revenue generation to make up for the elimination of all city funding.
For a lot of people, the conversion of the NYPD into a bandit gang or mafia would produce zero changes in their interactions.
First, when the FBI (or other government agency) violates the Constitution, it’s a felony. Violating wiretap laws is a felony. Violating the computer fraud & abuse act is a felony. If the FBI causes 40 agents to commit 3 felonies each in order to stop 10 guys from committing 2 felonies each, then not only have they not gotten all the crooks off the street, there are now 6 times as many felons on the streets as when they started.
Second, the claim that law enforcement is losing ground due to encryption is a lie. They have more access to criminal communications now than they did at any prior time in history. Criminals have ALWAYS had the ability to keep secrets. In the old days, cops had to have guys undercover for YEARS to get at those secrets. Nowadays, they can just push buttons and get access in minutes.
What is causing them to lose ground is too much information available, coupled to a lack of training on their part. Patrol officers make poor intel analysts unless extensively retrained, and very few are retrained before being expected to analyze intel. Then they get buried under enough raw data to drown even expert intel analysts. The results are predictable.
It’s not really any different from Leftists declaring hate speech to not be free speech - while simultaneously declaring any dissent to be hate speech.
It all boils down to a belief that only those who agree with your group should speak, and all others must be silenced.
What infringement? Copyright has never protected ideas, and similarities in expression are unavoidable when both games are depicting real world objects.
If similarity of those objects was copyright infringement, both game companies would lose a copyright lawsuit if sued by a gun or body armor manufacturer, because their in-game items look similar to product design drawings of actual real world items.
Copyright attributions or disclaimers have no beneficial effect on whether a work of yours is ruled infringing. In fact, they can be used as an admission of guilt - you knew your work was derivative or even direct infringement, did it anyway, then confessed to it publicly.
The problem is that you still use a progress bar, numeric score, fonts and an fps counter would mean it is still infringing if copyright protected ideas like you keep effectively insisting it should.
If any degree of similarity is infringement, then having anything ever used before would make your software an infringement. Luckily for us all, some things aren’t copyrightable.
It’s funny you mention the interests of the whole society. That IS why copyright originally existed, but the current version of it actually does the opposite - it currently benefits individuals at the expense of the whole society.
Copyright was supposed to encourage creators to publish by granting a time-limited monopoly, and when that time expired, the creation would be free to the whole of society, thereby enriching everyone’s world. But the time-limited monopoly keeps getting extended, to the point that society as a whole won’t be enriched by new creations for at least a century, in most cases.
That’s quite a jump from a decade or two, like it was originally. The purpose of copyright is to enrich society as a whole by temporarily rewarding individuals - it as been perverted to effectively permanently enrich individuals while society as a whole gets nothing.
What copyright infringements? Copyright doesn’t protect original ideas, and never has. Only patents do that, and PUBG is not patented. Copyright only protects individual expressions of ideas, and by necessity realistic artist’s renditions of real world objects must be similar.
Copyright law doesn’t forbid similar, it forbids only direct copies. A second artist drawing the same real world object that a prior artist has drawn s not makng a direct copy of the first artist’s work, so there is no copyright infringement.
If that sort of similarity DID make it copyright infringement, then PUBG has violated the life plus 70 year copyrights of the original product design drawings of the body armor produced by real world body armor manufacturers.
You just don’t understand copyright law very well, despite the article you’re commenting on giving a brief recap, do you?
Does PUBG have a patent on their game’s rules? Nope. It wasn’t original enough to get one. Patents protect ideas, but copyrights don’t. Copyrights only rotect the expression of an idea, the idea itself is unprotected.
Free Fire hasn’t cloned anything - except maybe reality. But reality isn’t copyrightable. People really do wear bullet-resistant armor on battlefields, and due to the shape of human bodies and colors used by the miitary, it all looks pretty similar. Depicting people on battlefields wearing realistic-looking armor is not protected by copyright. An individual image drawn by a 3-D artist is protected, but ONLY the image the artist drew - the idea of a soldier on a battlefield wearing body armor is not copyrightable, and someone else drawing their own image of the same idea has their own wholly separate copyright on the image they drew.
Similarity of independently created artist’s renditions of real world objects is utterly irrelevant to whether there is copyright infringement.
Re: So what the Sheriff is saying
Oh, it’s BETTER than that. Not only is it defamation to falsely claim something like that about people in a way that can cause actual harm (physical, financial and reputational), the fact that it’s TRUE is an absolute defense. And court records are public records.
If he takes this to court he risks creating an official declaration in public records that his deputies are in fact members of criminal gangs. Because the best defense in a defamation case is the fact the statements were true, and the discovery phase would be BRUTAL for him.
Re: Re:
If it’s accessible under FOIA it’s not confidential. It can’t be. Otherwise you could make FOIA requests for other people’s SSNs, login passwords, etc.
Re: get the license instead
Copyright is supposed to protect interpretations of ideas, not the idea itself.
Unless the newspaper cartoon is a photorealistic exact copy of the statue, it’s an interpretation of an idea, not the idea itself.
Re: How many agencies need Proof of 'What'
The problem is that if they can get into your account to pay your bills, they can also get in to change what address tax refunds get mailed to.
Re: Re: light sensitive?
Being required to explain your medical condition(s) to random strangers would also violate HIPAA.
Re: Re: light sensitive?
If doing it were disruptive to a school, it would also ban report cards and even graded tests.
Re: Re: Re: light sensitive?
This. Calling for people to pursue legitimate grievances using proper procedures though school-approved official channels is not disruption of the school.
If it were, then ANY communication to the school of anything but fawning praise would also be disruption - even asking for a class schedule or campus map.
Re: Who's the Boss
If NYC ever finally has enough and decides to find a different policing option than the NYPD, I fully expect a large portion of the NYPD to simply ignore the disbandment order, and ramp up their revenue generation to make up for the elimination of all city funding.
For a lot of people, the conversion of the NYPD into a bandit gang or mafia would produce zero changes in their interactions.
Re: morally questionable
Two problems with that.
First, when the FBI (or other government agency) violates the Constitution, it’s a felony. Violating wiretap laws is a felony. Violating the computer fraud & abuse act is a felony. If the FBI causes 40 agents to commit 3 felonies each in order to stop 10 guys from committing 2 felonies each, then not only have they not gotten all the crooks off the street, there are now 6 times as many felons on the streets as when they started.
Second, the claim that law enforcement is losing ground due to encryption is a lie. They have more access to criminal communications now than they did at any prior time in history. Criminals have ALWAYS had the ability to keep secrets. In the old days, cops had to have guys undercover for YEARS to get at those secrets. Nowadays, they can just push buttons and get access in minutes.
What is causing them to lose ground is too much information available, coupled to a lack of training on their part. Patrol officers make poor intel analysts unless extensively retrained, and very few are retrained before being expected to analyze intel. Then they get buried under enough raw data to drown even expert intel analysts. The results are predictable.
It’s not rocket surgery
Federal regulation preempts state regulation. But if federal regulation is abolished, there is no federal regulation to (heh) trump state regulation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Officially They're A Publisher
Or more aptly, someone whose politics Koby hates holding a political rally in Koby’s living room. By his ‘logic’, he’d have no right to say no.
Re: Re:
It’s not really any different from Leftists declaring hate speech to not be free speech - while simultaneously declaring any dissent to be hate speech.
It all boils down to a belief that only those who agree with your group should speak, and all others must be silenced.
Re:
What infringement? Copyright has never protected ideas, and similarities in expression are unavoidable when both games are depicting real world objects.
If similarity of those objects was copyright infringement, both game companies would lose a copyright lawsuit if sued by a gun or body armor manufacturer, because their in-game items look similar to product design drawings of actual real world items.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously you do, or you’d just scroll past instead of reading and replying.
Re: Re:
You’ve never actually been in court, have you?
Copyright attributions or disclaimers have no beneficial effect on whether a work of yours is ruled infringing. In fact, they can be used as an admission of guilt - you knew your work was derivative or even direct infringement, did it anyway, then confessed to it publicly.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you still use a progress bar, numeric score, fonts and an fps counter would mean it is still infringing if copyright protected ideas like you keep effectively insisting it should.
If any degree of similarity is infringement, then having anything ever used before would make your software an infringement. Luckily for us all, some things aren’t copyrightable.
Re: Re:
They’d all lose to MIDI Maze (Xanth Software F/X, 1987), which was the first first person shooter, though not the first to become wildly popular.
It even had multiplayer deathmatch!
Re: Re:
It’s funny you mention the interests of the whole society. That IS why copyright originally existed, but the current version of it actually does the opposite - it currently benefits individuals at the expense of the whole society.
Copyright was supposed to encourage creators to publish by granting a time-limited monopoly, and when that time expired, the creation would be free to the whole of society, thereby enriching everyone’s world. But the time-limited monopoly keeps getting extended, to the point that society as a whole won’t be enriched by new creations for at least a century, in most cases.
That’s quite a jump from a decade or two, like it was originally. The purpose of copyright is to enrich society as a whole by temporarily rewarding individuals - it as been perverted to effectively permanently enrich individuals while society as a whole gets nothing.
Re: Re:
What copyright infringements? Copyright doesn’t protect original ideas, and never has. Only patents do that, and PUBG is not patented. Copyright only protects individual expressions of ideas, and by necessity realistic artist’s renditions of real world objects must be similar.
Copyright law doesn’t forbid similar, it forbids only direct copies. A second artist drawing the same real world object that a prior artist has drawn s not makng a direct copy of the first artist’s work, so there is no copyright infringement.
If that sort of similarity DID make it copyright infringement, then PUBG has violated the life plus 70 year copyrights of the original product design drawings of the body armor produced by real world body armor manufacturers.
Either way, PUBG will lose.
Re: PUBG will win...
You just don’t understand copyright law very well, despite the article you’re commenting on giving a brief recap, do you?
Does PUBG have a patent on their game’s rules? Nope. It wasn’t original enough to get one. Patents protect ideas, but copyrights don’t. Copyrights only rotect the expression of an idea, the idea itself is unprotected.
Free Fire hasn’t cloned anything - except maybe reality. But reality isn’t copyrightable. People really do wear bullet-resistant armor on battlefields, and due to the shape of human bodies and colors used by the miitary, it all looks pretty similar. Depicting people on battlefields wearing realistic-looking armor is not protected by copyright. An individual image drawn by a 3-D artist is protected, but ONLY the image the artist drew - the idea of a soldier on a battlefield wearing body armor is not copyrightable, and someone else drawing their own image of the same idea has their own wholly separate copyright on the image they drew.
Similarity of independently created artist’s renditions of real world objects is utterly irrelevant to whether there is copyright infringement.
More comments from Bergman >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Bergman.
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