Well... I knew we had "protected denomination of origin" stuff here in europe, a concept that works a bit like intellectual property, but I thought that was just for food, wines, and such. :)
The Guardian only mentions having the trademark removed on the grounds of it being "misleading or deceptive".
As for the team wanting to keep the name... I'd guess its because of the valuable merchandising business. Plus, the club isn't even moving outside of London. They just want to build the new stadium where it's cheaper, in a different borough. From what I could figure out, Stratford is just about 9 miles away from Tottenham!
On the other and... the club started as Hotspur F.C.. So why not go back to that?
"why are we not seeing the same sort of claims about the Pakistani journalists who put this CIA boss in danger?"
Because it would almost certainly invoke memories of the Valerie Plame affair. Not even US officials (Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage) or journalists (Robert Novak) that revealed the name of a CIA agent get punished. So why should Pakistani citizens?
Of course this also raises questions about the calls for trial/imprisonment/death for Assange and the actual imprisonment and torture of his alleged source Bradley Manning. No one was ever charged or spent a single day in jail for outing Valerie Plame (Libby was charged and convicted of obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury)! So apparently American politicians can leak whatever they want, while soldiers and foreign citizens cannot. Nice!
Re: Nelsoncruz is right, it is not a "you must be a criminal" tax
Actually, this is not a tax on illegal uses, because such a tax would make filesharing legal, it's more vicious.
Yes, it's a tax for legal uses. And actually it has been used by a spanish judge to rule file sharing as legal. Mike also did a post on it here on techdirt. Basically the judge ruled that the legality of using file sharing applications depended on what you do with the downloaded copies. If they are for personal/private use (ie you don't go around selling them) then it's legal under the law. He mentioned specifically that such copies end up on physical media and devices that pay levies precisely for that purpose. He also ruled that private individuals uploading files to each other did not equal distribution or broadcasting under the (spanish) law.
That was in March, and legislation that will (probably) overturn that decision is still under discussion.
Re: Re: Re: Nelsoncruz is right, it is not a "you must be a criminal" tax
Circumventing DRM is illegal in Europe as well, including in countries where private copies are legal and levies exist. Which is ridiculous. I agree.
Here is how the legislators tried to get around this here in Portugal. The law states that DRM "should not" prevent the free uses under the law (like private copies, educational uses, etc). When it does, the distributor of the DRM protected work should deposit with IGAC (General Inspection of Cultural Activities) the means by which anyone can enjoy these rights. That, of course, doesn't happen! Nobody deposits any such "means". One would think the DRMs would loose legal protection because of that... but they don't. Maybe the courts will rule that way one day. As far as I know, no DRM circumvention case has ever gone to court here.
I found out recently we don't even have case law determining whether photocopying an entire book is legal or not, under the same 2004 copyright law update that protects DRMs... so that could take a while. :)
It's not really "a tax presuming you are breaking the law". It's actually a tax presuming you are using a right given by the law - that you can make copies for personal/private use.
The law in Spain, as well as here in Portugal and other places, recognizes that right, but also says such copying "should" be accompanied by "compensation". And these levies are the mechanism for that.
I'm not saying I don't have a problem with these levies... it's still something you pay whether you buy CDs or DVDs to copy copyrighted works or your vacation photos. But short of a voluntary system, where nobody would pay, it's the best we can do. As long as these levies are reasonably small, I'm OK with them.
"GTA San Andreas also primarily centered around commentary on the war on drugs and gangs, and it featured corrupt cops and federal agents, and area 51."
I second that. Also the "talk radios" and the ads on the radio have some of the best social commentary I have ever seen. I still quote two of those ads with my friends sometimes. Plus, the game character got fat if you had him eat to often at fast food places and didn't exercice!
It's one my favorite games of all time. GTA IV tried, but did not match it.
Mike, send AP an email with a EULA, like Cory Doctorow suggested in a lecture once, saying something like:
"By reading this email you grant Techdirt the right to quote AP stories in perpetuity, waving the right to any financial compensation and agreeing not to sue." :)
I guess it's time to start calling NAMP, ASCAP, RIAA, et all, what they really are: radical extremists! Radical faith-based extremists. Period.
Two can play that game. And lets look at what they are defending...
Due Process? Doesn't matter. Privacy? Doesn't exist. Properly assigning liability to those who actually break the law? Dont care.
All they care about is their precious copyright laws and business models. It's as if Moses himself carried them down the mountain. If they have to shred Constitutional protections along the way to bigger profits, then so be it.
I don't support this policy. It's stupid and harmful. But I do understand the rational for it. They want to keep circumvention tools illegal and out of the public's hands.
If you legalize circumvention for "Non-Infringing Purposes", you have to legalize the tools as well. And then it all becomes a matter of what people do with those tools in the privacy of their own homes, where copyright holders can't exert any control. People can use these tools for legal backup copies, or they might copy rented DVDs. In essence the entire anti-circumvention thing is neutered.
What people do with the tools in the privacy of their own homes can't be controlled. Only the making, distributing and selling of the tools, in public, can be controlled and prosecuted. That's why it's illegal.
And yes, I do realize that applying this same principle a lot of other tools with illegal uses could be banned. :)
Not only that... but in an appeal, how the hell does one "prove" they are not guilty? How does one prove a negative?
This whole thing is like if people started to report license plates of cars we see busting speed limits, etc, and the police fined the owners... unless they appeal and prove to be innocent. It's absolutely mind boggling!
I did the math with electricity and gas prices here in Portugal right now. Grid power is about 0.1285€ per kWh. With a Bloom Box and natural gas at the prices I get in my house (for heating and cooking) I could make power at 0.1228€. Not big savings are they?
Sure, if I was a big gas consumer, and running a 100kWh Bloom Box 24/7 I would be, I could get gas at half price, but I could also get cheaper electric power from the grid. Even with that best case scenario of 50% cheaper power, I would only save about 55000€ per year. Instead of buying around 110000€ of grid power, I would buy 55000€ of natural gas to run one 100kWh bloom box. That would take 10 years to break even on the investment of $750,000 (around 552,000€ at current exchange rates). That's excluding maintenance, possible (if not quite probable) gas price increases, etc.
Molecular hydrogen (H2) at normal temperature and pressure is a gas. So, separating it from water would be easy (it would bubble out), but I dont think it would be a good idea to have water and a gas flowing on the same pipes. It's bound to cause problems, and it would force every house to have a means of separating the H2. You don't want to open a tap and have highly flammable and explosive gas come out of it.
Plus, if both water and hydrogen comes on the same pipe, at around the same constant mixture, what do we do when we just want water? Or just a lot of hydrogen? You ether store or waste what you don't need. So... not a good idea.
However, hydrogen is a component of water (H2O remember?). You only need electricity to release H2 from water.