I'd be surprised if the Court didn't elect to simply flush the toilet. ridding NZ of this particular piece of shit.
You'd be amazed at how well liked he appears to be in New Zealand.
I seem to recall the Fat Bastard volunteered to come to the US to stand trial if only money for his defense was released; and subsequently remember some $3 million being ordered released by a judge.
You remember entirely incorrectly. The DOJ did not release his funds. Certain funds were released *in New Zealand* and only for the NZ side of the case. His offer involved his US defense. In fact, the order releasing the funds specifically said he could not pay his US lawyers with it.
I sure hope he doesn't play cards wirh other inmates when he does get to the States. He's not much on bluffing.
Anything to help your buddies out at the MPAA ey Joe?
Hmm. As easy as it is to blame the MPAA, I would bet that they would protest HEAVILY if this was pushed forward. The LAST thing the MPAA wants is a tax on violent movies. They would probably lead the fight against it...
All it did was show that *THAT* project was no what consumers wanted, and no one had to spend money on it. That's a success. Spending money on a project no one wants is a failure. Doing market testing and moving on to something else is not a failure.
Second, you assume that it's "celebrities" that succeed or fail. It's not. It's the whole combination of things: the project, the connection, etc.
Trying to pigeon hole "celebrity" campaigns is meaningless. Those campaigns are nothing alike.
And, not surprisingly, Teleread has said it was an accident -- just a mixup in how they used a new aggregator tool to send stories to each other. They've taken down the story, though, frankly, they didn't need to do that.
I don't know what the normal techdirt response to something like this is (Given my interpretation of the editorial attitude 'round here, I'd hope not immediate legal threats).
Huh. That's odd. We have no problem with folks copying our stuff, though we appreciate them linking back to the original and properly crediting the author. As we've noted in the past, people are free to do whatever they want with our work, though if they replace bylines and don't mention the source, it often probably comes back to harm their *own* reputation.
Anyway, Teleread's always been a pretty good site that we're fans of here. I just sent a friendly email to the folks there to ask them if they meant to post it that way, or if it was unintentional, though making it clear that we appreciate our work being seen. We'd just appreciate it more if it were properly bylined and credited.
Do I think the term is generic? Maybe, but I've never heard of the pie by any name until today. Regardless, as of now no court has held that it is generic. So he has a valid trademark and he's enforcing it.
Bloggers posting Derby Pie recipes to their website are not engaged in commerce, which is necessary for their to be a trademark violation...
No it does not. A service provider who gets a DMCA notice about content is suppose to contact the user or account holder in question and given them time to reply.
That's not true. That's not what the law says.
Some ISPs choose to do that, but the law tells them to take it down first, not give them time to reply. It's "notice and takedown." What you're describing is "notice and notice" with has some interest but is not the law.
If you are going to make shit up, at least blame the right parties
And here, also explains what happens when you crowdfund. People start asking questions about your project.
Once again, you got it backwards. That story is saying that if you are open and honest you can build a real connection with your audience so they want to fund you... and you turn that into something bad about how people "start asking questions."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
And the Rolling Stones are discovering that people don't want to pay a lot of money to see them.
Sometimes I wonder what you're smoking, because you seem to be almost incapable of understanding things.
The Rolling Stones made more money touring than anyone else over the last decade. Last year they made $25 million from just FIVE shows.
Yeah. People don't want to pay? Are you out of your mind?
But, really that gets back to the idiotic point that started this discussion. How is it different if people give Braff money via Kickstarter or via a movie ticket? I'd argue that giving via Kickstarter is much better, because it goes directly to Braff and gives him a lot more control.
How come you're not out their arguing that people going to Hollywood movies are somehow "damaging" indie movies? Because that's the same thing you're arguing.
Let me put this another way. TD is clearly an advocacy site, and as such differs little from advocacy groups such as the EFF.
You're so funny. You've been commenting on this site for years, with a clear bias and an EXCEPTIONALLY clear agenda. You're just as much of an "advocate" as I am.
And, frankly, I'm thrilled to be compared to the EFF -- who you criticized earlier. If I've accomplished in my life 1% of what the EFF does in a year, then I've done something amazing.
If one is seeking objective information from which to formulate their own opinion, then they would best be served by looking elsewhere where such information resides.
I, as well as the EFF, are pretty good about including as many original sources as possible. We are big believers in letting people decide for themselves.
You, on the other hand, regularly lie, distort and mislead. And when called on it, you double down with more lies. Plus, you're (now) anonymous (despite naming yourself on other sites where your "friends" write).
You've never provided objective information here. You have a clear agenda and you weakly try to hide it by pretending that you're "merely here to provide some information" or whatever pedantic language choice you make that day.
No one is fooled by you.
Does the EFF have a bias? Absolutely. It's towards more freedom and what's best for the world. If you don't have that "bias" then you're a fool.
In matters associated with patent law you have your resources and I have mine (a few of which coincide with yours). Perhaps the main difference between yours and mine is that yours tend (but not always) to reflect your views, whereas mine reflect widely diverging views.
You know what they say about people who make assumptions?
You're completely wrong again. It happens a lot. You should stop making stupid assumptions because it only reflects poorly on you.
As per usual your ignorance and misguided condescension shows through. EFF has multiple staffers with a tremendous amount of experience in the patent space, including Julie and others who have worked for years on these issues and with innovative startups. You only insult them because you disagree with them. You do this all the time. You pretend that no one on the planet who disagrees with you about patents could possibly be intelligent or experienced in the space and you make idiotic and flat out wrong comments about them that are always pedantic in nature.
You could just admit that you disagree (though tellingly you didn't even make a single substantive comment on their analysis -- you just went straight for the insult) but no you have to claim they're stupid.
Over the past few years I've seen your daily comments here and have dealt with them many times. You have no business insulting them because you are consistently wrong, uninformed, and worse when called on it and proven wrong you pretend you never said what you said.