There is a country that approved a law to be implemented in October which has a provision like this. It says if a blind person wants an audio or braille version of a print book and one isn't legally available, a sighted person is allowed to make one for them without having to approach the rights owners and ask, "Mother, may I?" The country? It's the UK, which has protected copyrights since at least the 18th century. The implementation of this part of the Hargreaves Review doesn't so much 'ride roughshod over rights' as encourage rights holders to make accessible copies available over fears of 'losing revenue' on what they currently refuse to produce.
Further to my idea above, in case its not ads for Ninty that's on the vids, a user could put 'Monetized by Nintendo' after the title screen and a disclaimer denying connection to the company in the credits. That way, their logo could even be used on a vid, and because they're the only ones making money from it, users are in the clear.
The idea is this: everybody makes mashups of images and footage games such as 'Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem', all of the 'Resident Evil' series, basically just about any 15/M and above rated title you can think of. When Nintendo flags the vids, don't challenge even though it's clearly fair use, just hold your hands up and accept it. Once such a vid has Nintendo's ads all over it, it'll seem as though the company endorses its adult content to the casual viewer. That should screw up their 'squeaky clean, family friendly' image once and for all!
Google Lawyer: They don't actually get your email. What they're able to do is through our advertising business be able to identify keywords that they would like to trigger the display of one of their ads, but they don't get information about who the user is. Translation: Advertisers never see your email at all. What they're actually able to do say to Google, "We want this word, that word, and the other word to trigger a display of one of our adverts," and Google makes it happen via an automated process, during which no information is collected, personally identifying or otherwise.
(Above statement translated by someone who's technically retarded. What does that say about Gohmert?)
'Hidden' is a lot different to 'inaccessible', AC. IMHO, Techdirt actually does a great balancing trick whereby anybody is free to read the hidden comments simply by clicking on a link, but nobody is forced to read them by having them shoved in their face.
I found a story that the Brothers Grimm wrote down in 1812 in Deutsch, then shoved it through Google Translate before cleaning it up and changing a certain detail, then posting it on AO3 under the title 'Girl with Black Hair, Pale Skin, and Red Lips'. All that to avoid infringing on Disney's European trademark on 'Snow White'. And I was allowed to use the trademark then, nominative fair use or whatever rule applies.
EFF's amicus brief should be given due consideration
As Lord Justice Salmon noted in Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd , "I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by advancing the legal arguments on his behalf." (Emphasis mine.)
Most of the recommendations from the Hargreaves Review received Royal Assent, and as a result, it will legal in the UK from October to make an accessible copy of any book for a disabled person that needs it. The 'dangerous' thing about this is how it will force companies to follow the Equality Act 2010 in order to avoid 'losing sales to piracy'.
Actually, theft is taking something without the owner's knowledgeable consent, thus denying them use of it, whereas infringement involves making an illegal copy, leaving the original in place for the owner to do what they want with it.
If you claim that copyright extends for 70 years, (Can't remember the actual number) how will it work when people listen to it in a system 71 light years away?
It doesn't work quite like that because a light year isn't a measure of time, but distance; specifically, it's the distance that light travels in a year. So the (rarely applied in the US) term of life + 70 could be reached in just a few light hours (granted, I don't know exactly how far light travels in any given amount of time).
Er, Wally, that was the whole point of AC's use of the line highlighting the situation in Jurassic Park.
"The bad thing you imagine can't possibly happen."
"What if it does?"
"We've made sure it never will."
"Oh, fuck. Someone made a big boo boo, and now the bad thing has happened."