South Korea doesn't always have the firmest grasp on science. For example, it is widely believed in SK that an electric fan left running overnight in a closed room can cause the death of those sleeping inside.
So Hull is a wife beating Nazi loving racist... I've also heart that he can't reach an orgasim without killing a dog. That's just a subjective opinion I've made up somewhere.
I must admit, this is not an example of a guy claiming a trademark on a generic term, and then suing everyone. In other words, he's not a trademark troll. His restaurant allegedly invented the pie and trademarked the name way back in '68.
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.
I personally think he's in the PIE business and should stop spending so much money on litigation, but it's not my place to tell him how to run his business. And as a lawyer I commend his desire to employ us so handsomely.
Big legacy players such as ESPN don't want a free and open internet. They want to make sure the little guys have to pay a toll to get through. The money they're paying to bypass datacaps will likely be a great investment in avoiding a future disruptive web-based technology.
The argument I've heard is that Kickstarter is for people without hollywood connections. And as a hollywood insider, Zach should use those connections. However, he has said in interviews that he has tried traditional hollywood resources to make his movie without success.
But that's not even the real issue: Why should someone be forever tied to the hollywood system merely because he has used it in the past?! That makes no sense. Kickstarter allows anyone, even someone inside the system, to connect with fans and make the exact project they want. Without corporate/investor interference.
That's the beauty of Kickstarter. And to deny that to certain people for arbitrary reasons is simply asinine.
This is also an indictment against journalists who feel they have to tell both sides to the story. They don't.
If there's a story it should be reported, regardless of whether someone involved decides not to respond.
Can you imagine if the New York Times had decided to wait until the government responded to the Pentagon Papers? Or if Upton Sinclair had waited to get the side of the American meat packing industry before releasing the Jungle?
I still remember reading that statement. Did Jack ever explain himself? I've looked, but I have been unable to find anything. I can't believe that in all the subsequent interviews he did not one "journalist" ever called him on that BS.
Apparently, Rep. Steve King does not realize there are more than a thousand miles of unprotected border between the US and Canada that anyone can cross without impediment.
Yeah, stopping people from legally coming to the US will completely stop terrorism.
"Re-recordings of hit songs by different artists were a major source of income."
Which is where A&R guys got their name. A&R stands for Artist and Repertoire. Their job was to get musicians to perform songs from the label's repertoire. It was huge money at one time.
It's coming back, in part, because of cases similar to the Aereo case.
But, more so than that, having a monopoly is not enough. They want absolute control of everything. This treaty will ensure that.
If you try to put up any public domain show or movie on the web, they'll sue you claiming they have broadcast rights. You'll have to hire an attorney and prove you did not violate those rights. So instead you'll settle. And eventually no one will post public domain content.
Oh my fricken god. I was in law school in Baltimore back when this guy first starting suing. It was all anyone talked about for a while. I can't believe he's still at it.
Dude, you drew one thing. It was sort of cool. Now do the world a favor and get a real job.
"First, the court looks into the question of whether or not a transfer of a copyrighted file... still violates the 'reproduction' right. The court says yes"
To me the push to eliminate open WIFI actually has nothing to do with securing WIFI connections. It's all about creating a person or entity liable for the connection.
If it's open and child porn is being shared on it, there's plausible deniability. "It wasn't me, it was someone else."
But once a connection point is required to be locked down, it's the person or entity's responsibility to ensure that it's locked down. Even if someone "hacks" in, it's still the owner's fault for allowing it to happen.
It's sort of like the DRM requirement of the DMCA. It's not to stop people from copying, it's to make people liable for allowing or facilitating copying.
The government, wireless carriers, ISPs, and the copyright industry all hate open WIFI. It's gonna be killed, it's only a matter of time.
My prediction, within five years open WIFI will be illegal. We'll see stories about child porn, hacking, identify theft, copyright theft... etc. And we'll gladly give it up for the sake of children and profits.
And before John Carmack and John Romero formed Id Software, they would use their employer's computers at night and weekends to write their games on, without permission.
That's breaking and entering, trespassing, embezzlement, and because it was without permission, numerous violations of CFAA (which obviously didn't exist at the time.)
The purpose of copyright should not be to protect business models. That's what this whole BS is about. Mobile carriers wanting to squeeze a little more of it customers. Keeping people from unlocking their purchased phones has NOTHING to do with promoting the progress of science and useful arts.
The worst thing politicians did was call drug laws the "war on drugs." No politician would ever back down from a war, it'd be a huge sign of weakness.
So even though drug laws were not working, politicians were not willing to change the laws. It took voter initiatives to get marijuana legal in some states, not brave politicians.
If we call the mere use of a computer to commit crimes a cyberwar, we're going to waste hundreds of millions of dollars and ruin countless lives in this "war," without solving a single problem.
On the post: Quack Professor Releases Dumbest Violent Video Game Theory Ever
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death
On the post: Chicago Blackhawks Fire Reporter Over Silly Old YouTube Videos
On the post: EFF Teaches You How To Bake Mean-Spirited Censorship Pie
Re: Re: Re: Nothing wrong with this trademark IMHO
On the post: EFF Teaches You How To Bake Mean-Spirited Censorship Pie
Re: Nothing wrong with this trademark IMHO
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.
I personally think he's in the PIE business and should stop spending so much money on litigation, but it's not my place to tell him how to run his business. And as a lawyer I commend his desire to employ us so handsomely.
On the post: Why ESPN's Offer To Pay To Have Its Content Bypass Data Cap Meters Plays Right Into The Hands Of Wireless Providers
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
But that's not even the real issue: Why should someone be forever tied to the hollywood system merely because he has used it in the past?! That makes no sense. Kickstarter allows anyone, even someone inside the system, to connect with fans and make the exact project they want. Without corporate/investor interference.
That's the beauty of Kickstarter. And to deny that to certain people for arbitrary reasons is simply asinine.
On the post: How EA's 'Silent Treatment' Pushed The SimCity Story Into The Background
If there's a story it should be reported, regardless of whether someone involved decides not to respond.
Can you imagine if the New York Times had decided to wait until the government responded to the Pentagon Papers? Or if Upton Sinclair had waited to get the side of the American meat packing industry before releasing the Jungle?
On the post: MPAA Pretends To Be A Regular Defender Of Fair Use; The Evidence Suggests Otherwise
I still remember reading that statement. Did Jack ever explain himself? I've looked, but I have been unable to find anything. I can't believe that in all the subsequent interviews he did not one "journalist" ever called him on that BS.
On the post: Rep. Steve King: Because Boston Bombing May Have Been Done By An Immigrant, We Should Block Immigration Reform
Yeah, stopping people from legally coming to the US will completely stop terrorism.
On the post: New Book On The History Of Music, Copyright And Piracy Shows How Copyright Tends To Hold Back Music
Which is where A&R guys got their name. A&R stands for Artist and Repertoire. Their job was to get musicians to perform songs from the label's repertoire. It was huge money at one time.
On the post: Broadcast Treaty Is Baaaaaack: Plan To Create Yet Another Copyright-Like Right For Hollywood
But, more so than that, having a monopoly is not enough. They want absolute control of everything. This treaty will ensure that.
If you try to put up any public domain show or movie on the web, they'll sue you claiming they have broadcast rights. You'll have to hire an attorney and prove you did not violate those rights. So instead you'll settle. And eventually no one will post public domain content.
This will be a huge cash cow.
On the post: Things You Don't See Every Day: MPAA Argues For Fair Use In Court
Dude, you drew one thing. It was sort of cool. Now do the world a favor and get a real job.
On the post: Organization That Plagiarized Guide On Making Science Posters Has Pricey Lawyer Threaten Original Creator With Copyright Claim
Yeah, it sort of does. Karma's a bitch.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Yikes!!!
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
Re:
If it's open and child porn is being shared on it, there's plausible deniability. "It wasn't me, it was someone else."
But once a connection point is required to be locked down, it's the person or entity's responsibility to ensure that it's locked down. Even if someone "hacks" in, it's still the owner's fault for allowing it to happen.
It's sort of like the DRM requirement of the DMCA. It's not to stop people from copying, it's to make people liable for allowing or facilitating copying.
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
My prediction, within five years open WIFI will be illegal. We'll see stories about child porn, hacking, identify theft, copyright theft... etc. And we'll gladly give it up for the sake of children and profits.
On the post: Innovators Break Stuff, Including The Rules: How Gates, Jobs & Zuckerberg Could Have Been Targeted Like Aaron Swartz
That's breaking and entering, trespassing, embezzlement, and because it was without permission, numerous violations of CFAA (which obviously didn't exist at the time.)
On the post: Bizarre Legal Threat Of The Day: Confused Zoo Owner Threatens Popehat Over... Well... Just Read It
Understatement of the year.
On the post: White House Says Mobile Phone Unlocking Should Be Legal
On the post: Stop Calling Electronic Espionage Cyberwar
So even though drug laws were not working, politicians were not willing to change the laws. It took voter initiatives to get marijuana legal in some states, not brave politicians.
If we call the mere use of a computer to commit crimes a cyberwar, we're going to waste hundreds of millions of dollars and ruin countless lives in this "war," without solving a single problem.