To be clear, I mean that--if you have to use any insinuation of violence, or violent imagery, in any capacity, you've crossed a line from valid political speech.
You know how if you use any violent imagery or rhetoric toward the President, you get the Secret Service knocking?
Expand the exact same level of protection to all 535 members of congress and all Federal judges, district to SCOTUS. Send out the FBI. Criminalize the same, which will not affect any legitimate political speech. Done.
...and that might be up your alley as a two-part question.:
What if someone magically did wake up with super powers tomorrow--let's say good-old super-speed, and tossed on a red suit, fought some crime with a full-face mask (no one knows who he is), and then told a local news reporter on live TV that they can call him "The Flash", which is I think both a copyright and trademark of DC/Time Warner.
Now, I'm sure the company could (and would) shut down the army of t-shirts and other bootleg swag that would pop up. But...
1. Could DC/Time Warner legally stop him, the person, from calling himself that in his deeds, actions, and so on?
2. If he called himself "New Name And Concept", or NNAC for short, which doesn't exist in any established, copyrighted work--could he stop DC/Time Warner or Marvel from just inserting NNAC or a shameless copy of it into their own books for profit?
If you think this is more up their alley, I'll punt it over their, but it seems like yours.
IP as a concept is not evil. Abuse of IP as a concept IS evil.
I was just reading a book on the way into work today: a Charlaine Harris "Sookie" book, which Hollywood turned into the TV show True Blood, that I watched on HBO last night after Alan Ball (Six Feet Under's creator) pushed it. I was also this morning thinking about the upcoming AMC version of Robert Kirkman's comic book The Walking Dead, which Hollywood put into production after Frank Darabont (The Green Mile, Shawshank) pushed them.
My thinking was that it's so wonderful that both Harris and Kirkman won the proverbial lottery in return for creating such wonderful works, and my main thought was "Good for them".
If we had no IP, HBO/Ball and AMC/Darabont could have trivially taken it all and left them with nothing. Even if they both only got $10,000 off the deals -- and I'm sure it was better than that -- its $10,000 more than they had before.
The anti-IP zealots needs to understand how the real world works, as much as the pro-IP zealots need to, as well. The real world is not just the RIAA/MPAA and East Texas Lawyers versus crazed people downloading terrabytes of stolen media and helpless tech startups being blockaded from innovation unless they pay some nonsense bounty.
Is that you can't steal actual services. If you use Comcast, for example, and you pay $30 for 10Mbps download speeds, you can't use a modded modem to get say 20Mbps for that $30. Their network, their rules. Same as Techdirt--if Mike doesn't like your comments, he nukes them; he doesn't like your IP range hitting the site faster than 200Kbps, he can throttle it, or he can block access. Or paywall the site.
Good, bad business? Sure, of course. But it's his playground, that he owns, and his rules.
The guy was apparently selling these modded modems, which is a no-no.
1. I buy a CD or iTunes or album.
2. I play the music in my car loudly.
3. I roll down the windows of my car.
4. These people demand I pay... again, for the mobile public performance?
The plaintiff going after the ad revenues generated or believed to be generated by his video is probably all just standard discovery. Maybe the guy figures he's entitled to another $50,000 for the out of contract usage. Maybe the lawyer's thinking $75,000. But what if Fox did pull in +$600,000 or +$6,000,000 because of the video? Doubtful, but who knows?
I can see why they're asking for that info, to set a target for damages. That's not exactly out of the ordinary, either.
It probably depends on the initial terms of her hiring--if it included all that standard "everything you do is ours" language, which it may or may not, depending on the job...
From the complaint/legal documents as posted on Scribd:
13. Stadt immediately forwarded Fox a "Cease and Desist Letter".
14. After receipt of the "Cease and Desist Letter", Fox acknowledged its continued use of the Video in breach of the License Agreement.
15-16. Fox re-ups a legal agreement to pay Stadt for use of his video for x days, etc., pays him again.
17. Fox again uses the video beyond the paid-for, legally agreed upon window, etc.
18+: Lawsuit ahoy.
If this is true, this is super cut-and-dried. It sounds like super basic breach of contract stuff, here.
Fox, the wonderfully adept journalists they are, are totally, inexplicably, 100% at fault in this scenario. They agreed to a rather stupid contract, and are now getting hammered over it.
As soon as Google receives a court order they should immediately notify the user(s) in question and turn over all possible information related to the situation to the user(s) in question, so that the the affected parties can fight it.
At least in the USA, it's not Google's fight, to fight, unless the request was some absurd mass exposure situation foolishly requested by a stupid judge or some nonsensical law getting passed somewhere, and they chose to take a stand.
For more mundane court issues (libel, defamation, harassment, etc.) it's not their battle, nor any other provider's, nor should it be.
Unlike songs, which is the most common analogy via iTunes, a novel takes significantly longer and more time to write--how many authors can produce more than one quality novel every year to year and a half?
While it could be the publishers gouging, it could very well be due to that fact. Also, in the traditional marketing and sales of novels, the runs for what is considered "successful" is much smaller in scale than the parallel in the music industry.
Authors need to get paid, to make a living so that they can write and publish more than one book every 2-5 years by doing it on the side. Few if any writers even make that much money, so I can't begrudge them for now charging what they do for eBooks. If the market and their livelihoods can support lower prices later, great for them, in trade of selling in higher volumes. It'll shake itself out.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Joe Szilagyi.
Re: Easy solution: just this.
Easy solution: just this.
Expand the exact same level of protection to all 535 members of congress and all Federal judges, district to SCOTUS. Send out the FBI. Criminalize the same, which will not affect any legitimate political speech. Done.
Mike, a more fun question for you to do a post on is...
What if someone magically did wake up with super powers tomorrow--let's say good-old super-speed, and tossed on a red suit, fought some crime with a full-face mask (no one knows who he is), and then told a local news reporter on live TV that they can call him "The Flash", which is I think both a copyright and trademark of DC/Time Warner.
Now, I'm sure the company could (and would) shut down the army of t-shirts and other bootleg swag that would pop up. But...
1. Could DC/Time Warner legally stop him, the person, from calling himself that in his deeds, actions, and so on?
2. If he called himself "New Name And Concept", or NNAC for short, which doesn't exist in any established, copyrighted work--could he stop DC/Time Warner or Marvel from just inserting NNAC or a shameless copy of it into their own books for profit?
If you think this is more up their alley, I'll punt it over their, but it seems like yours.
Class action lawsuit
Date of birth
Not that it matters now, as the internet has arrived.
For example, here's how the Academy fails
Jesus, forest for the trees or something
I was just reading a book on the way into work today: a Charlaine Harris "Sookie" book, which Hollywood turned into the TV show True Blood, that I watched on HBO last night after Alan Ball (Six Feet Under's creator) pushed it. I was also this morning thinking about the upcoming AMC version of Robert Kirkman's comic book The Walking Dead, which Hollywood put into production after Frank Darabont (The Green Mile, Shawshank) pushed them.
My thinking was that it's so wonderful that both Harris and Kirkman won the proverbial lottery in return for creating such wonderful works, and my main thought was "Good for them".
If we had no IP, HBO/Ball and AMC/Darabont could have trivially taken it all and left them with nothing. Even if they both only got $10,000 off the deals -- and I'm sure it was better than that -- its $10,000 more than they had before.
The anti-IP zealots needs to understand how the real world works, as much as the pro-IP zealots need to, as well. The real world is not just the RIAA/MPAA and East Texas Lawyers versus crazed people downloading terrabytes of stolen media and helpless tech startups being blockaded from innovation unless they pay some nonsense bounty.
One problem
Good, bad business? Sure, of course. But it's his playground, that he owns, and his rules.
The guy was apparently selling these modded modems, which is a no-no.
I'm in a car
1. I buy a CD or iTunes or album.
2. I play the music in my car loudly.
3. I roll down the windows of my car.
4. These people demand I pay... again, for the mobile public performance?
Broken law
Re: Re: Re: Nothing stupid about it; it's basic contract law
I can see why they're asking for that info, to set a target for damages. That's not exactly out of the ordinary, either.
Gray area, maybe, depending...
Re: Nothing stupid about it; it's basic contract law
13. Stadt immediately forwarded Fox a "Cease and Desist Letter".
14. After receipt of the "Cease and Desist Letter", Fox acknowledged its continued use of the Video in breach of the License Agreement.
15-16. Fox re-ups a legal agreement to pay Stadt for use of his video for x days, etc., pays him again.
17. Fox again uses the video beyond the paid-for, legally agreed upon window, etc.
18+: Lawsuit ahoy.
If this is true, this is super cut-and-dried. It sounds like super basic breach of contract stuff, here.
Nothing stupid about it; it's basic contract law
Nothing immoral, unethical, or 'bad' about it.
The law is broken
Keep it simple unless it's a special case
At least in the USA, it's not Google's fight, to fight, unless the request was some absurd mass exposure situation foolishly requested by a stupid judge or some nonsensical law getting passed somewhere, and they chose to take a stand.
For more mundane court issues (libel, defamation, harassment, etc.) it's not their battle, nor any other provider's, nor should it be.
Time of production for the creators?
While it could be the publishers gouging, it could very well be due to that fact. Also, in the traditional marketing and sales of novels, the runs for what is considered "successful" is much smaller in scale than the parallel in the music industry.
Authors need to get paid, to make a living so that they can write and publish more than one book every 2-5 years by doing it on the side. Few if any writers even make that much money, so I can't begrudge them for now charging what they do for eBooks. If the market and their livelihoods can support lower prices later, great for them, in trade of selling in higher volumes. It'll shake itself out.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Joe Szilagyi.
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