I would look at the movie Willow as a good example of a "low-budget" fantasy movie. At the time, it cost $35million to make. $65million adjusted for inflation. However, when you look at the actual special effects used in the film, they could be done for quite a lot less money now than they did then due to technological advances.
Another recent example is the film Monsters which reportedly had a $500,000 budget and had some really good monster effects.
Using both those as examples along with Leigh's GoT example, I would say that you could easily make a good 2 hour fantasy movie on a $20million or less budget.
The judge also has to square the jury award against the 8th amendment which bars excessive fines. So yes, the judge in that case was doing his judiciary duty.
"The university asked the court to say that publicity rights in NJ last either 70 years or indefinitely. The judge decided that 50 years was what the court in NJ would likely decide, so that's what it went with. This was a concrete case between adversaries where an answer to that question was actually needed. The judge didn't just decide the law in NJ. He decided the law that would apply to the concrete case before him."
I agree an answer was needed. However, the only clear answer was that there are no laws stating otherwise, so publicity rights don't exist. Making up a law, which the life+50 year judgement is, was the wrong choice.
I would think that since the university got only 50 years of IP protection, instead of 70 years or infinitely many years, you anti-IP folks would be celebrating.
We are fine with the general idea of the Hebrew University losing the case, but the actual ruling sets a dangerous and wrong precedent. As I said already, they should have lost because there is no publicity right for them to claim.
Legislating from the bench requires making up rules that do not exist or changing rules that are plainly read.
What happened in the cases you cite is a judge doing what they are set to do, pronounce sentences. A Judge has the right to amend the jury awards if s/he believes it to be contrary to the Constitution or legal precedent. However, that is not legislating from the bench.
This is probably one of the most clear cases of a judge legislating from the bench. The judge could not find a law to support any claim from either side so he made up one that fit his conclusion.
He could have easily just ruled that sense the Hebrew University could present no legal basis for their publicity rights claim that their suit was invalid. Instead, he wanted to create some kind of precedent that will do nothing but confuse the issue in the future.
Interesting way to interpret the turnout. The way I read it was as follows:
50% of the people cared enough one way or another to go out and make their voices heard. Of those 50%, 66% were emphatically in support of the new constitution. This means that 35% were all for it, 15% were completely against it, and 50% were indifferent.
Being indifferent does not mean opposed to the concept. It just means that they would be content either way.
Personally, I would rather the US adhere to its Constitution. It is simple, to the point and leaves a lot of room for individual liberty. Unfortunately, the last 100 years or so have seen the Constitution being thrown out by the people.
That said, I would love to have a new Constitution written in this fashion for Oklahoma. Oklahoma's Constitution is the longest in the nation and is filled with a bunch of crap that shouldn't even be there.
Looking at the money we can see that these authors are doing quite well for themselves over the last two weeks*.
The default split between authors, charity and Humble Tip is 65% to the authors. If you calculate that out, you get a little over $700,000. If you figure in just the original bunch**, then that is roughly $100,000 for each author.
Even reversing the default split, thus granting the authors 35% of sales, that gives each author nearly $43,000 for two weeks of sales.
Either way you look at it, that is a good chunk of change for two weeks worth of sales and I know of many authors that would kill for those receipts for an entire year. Even legacy published authors.
*This is rough calculations not based on any real data from the Humble Guys. They would probably have a more sophisticated payment process that factors in above and below average sales. They would also know exactly how much went to charity and to the Humble Tip.
**The added authors would only get a portion of the sales after they were added and only for those sales that are over the average.
$13.94 is what they are paying (on average), how can consumers get all this for free ?? (including the extra's)?
The Pirate Bay. Every book here is available there. That is how you can get it for free.
who keeps telling you things like what you claim ?? why would you accept that. I think youre just building a strawman argument..
We have a number of critics in the comments here that frequently tell us that modern business models such as the Humble Bundle will never work. We have plenty of people saying that Kickstarter and other crowdfunding is just a bubble and it will never work for legacy gatekeepers.
The Legacy industries are the primary source of quotes about how only the old way of doing business is viable. Anything else in unsustainable.
An number of people have brought up your concerns, so I will address them here, since you seem to have a pretty good listing of problems with my story.
5 minutes. That's all it would take to realize that 99% of what's listed in this "interview" isn't true.
I read the entire linked source article and the Windows Store app guidelines. I would have thought that would be sufficient research. Guess I was wrong. Should have asked my critics too.
1) Windows is not restricting app installations on computers to only the app store.
True, but the Metro UI is the default upon logging in and what the majority of casual users will spend the majority of their time.
They are restricting MetroUI apps, which is not where something like Skyrim would run.
It is not where today's Skyrim will run, but what about tomorrow's Skyrim that wants to be sold in the Windows Store and run in the Metro UI?
2) The 3D work done for Skyrim is completely incompatible with the ARM devices, meaning that it would NEVER EVER EVER run on an RT tablet anyhow.
Who is talking about RT devices? This article refers to desktops and laptops. On top of that, what is to say that an RT game developer would not seek out an ESRB or PEGI rating?
3) Yes, Microsoft has caused some confusion by calling everything this generation "Windows 8". That doesn't mean they're all the same product.
I made no indication that the confusion was over what is or is not Windows 8. I pointed out the confusion of having a store with conflicting rules for inclusion. It just so happened that the examples were for a desktop computer.
4) Claiming Windows 8 won't run anything outside the Windows Store is either intentional misinformation or willful ignorance.
Did I make that claim? I don't think so.
Glossing over that Skyrim (and in fact most apps) will never be a part of MetroUI is just negligence.
Never is a strong word.
5) Skyrim runs in Windows 7. That means it'll run in Windows 8. End of story.
This isn't about Skyrim. This isn't about any one particular game. This is about arbitrary rule and restrictions that conflict with each other. The games were simply an example to show how arbitrary and contradictory the rules are. Sorry you missed that point.
If the drink sucked, then no one would buy it and it would no longer be on the menu. Considering that the drink has been on the menu for 14 years, means that it is good enough and popular enough to not harm the Nutella brand in any way.
It's really a no brainer here. Nutella gets little, gives up way more, and didn't even get to choose being in the relationship. I don't blame them for using the lawyers.
What? They get nothing out of this? What about all the jars of Nutella the restaurant buys to fill the demand for the drink? What about all the people that go out of their way to buy Nutella in order to make the drink at home? That is not a net gain for Nutella and its brand?
As for using lawyers, that has done more harm than good for the brand. By sending in the lawyers, Nutella has now alienated itself from a large number of former and potential customers. Now, instead of seeking out Nutella to make their drinks, these former customers will be buying competing brands. That is a net loss to Nutella and its brand.
Does he really need to use the phrase "fair use" when discussing the application of such? The general concept of fair use of trademark was present all throughout the article and is in fact the main point. So your "critique" has no merit.
Posting that the year is 2012 might be true today, it might be true tomorrow. However, someone finding that post on January 1, 2013 and after would be greeted with false information and deceptive reporting.