<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;batman&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:20:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Attendee At Batman Shooting Plans To Sue Warner Bros For Making Batman Too Violent</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/10573119811/attendee-batman-shooting-plans-to-sue-warner-bros-making-batman-too-violent.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/10573119811/attendee-batman-shooting-plans-to-sue-warner-bros-making-batman-too-violent.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We live in a litigious society.  That's not a secret.  So it's no surprise that, in the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado Batman shootings, lawsuits will be filed.  But as always the question is: who do you sue?  Well, if the linked TMZ article is accurate, Torrence Brown Jr., who was in the theater, but not directly injured (though a friend of his was killed), has lawyered up, hiring an attorney named Donald Karpel <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-lawsuit-shooting/" target="_blank"><b><i>to sue Warner Bros.</i></b> for making the movie too violent</a>.  He's also apparently planning to sue the theater for not properly guarding the emergency exit, which is apparently where Holmes left and re-entered with the weapons.  Oh yeah, and the doctors of shooter James Holmes for not properly monitoring him.  
<br /><br />
This certainly seems like a frivolous lawsuit.  Going after <em>Warner Bros.?</em>  For <em>what?</em>  That's likely to get laughed out of court.  This seems like a clear case of a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100503/0319149274.shtml">"Steve Dallas lawsuit,"</a> named for the <a href="http://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1986/06/22/" target="_blank">famous Bloom County comic strip</a> in which lawyer Steve Dallas gets beat up by Sean Penn after trying to take a photograph of the star.  He then explains why the proper target of a lawsuit is not Sean Penn, but the "Nikolta Camera" company, because "a major corporation with gobs of liquid cash ... was criminally negligent in not putting stickers on their camera which read, 'warning: physical injury may result from photographing psychopathic Hollywood hotheads."  
<center>
<a href="http://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1986/06/22/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/WWoTf.png" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a>
</center>
In a coincidence that you simply couldn't make up, it turns out that Karpel once represented (no, seriously) a <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2011/04/13/sean-penn-paparazzi-settlement-terms-haiti-charities-attack-legal-court/" target="_blank">paparazzi photographer beat up by Sean Penn</a>.  Life imitates comic strips.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/10573119811/attendee-batman-shooting-plans-to-sue-warner-bros-making-batman-too-violent.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/10573119811/attendee-batman-shooting-plans-to-sue-warner-bros-making-batman-too-violent.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/10573119811/attendee-batman-shooting-plans-to-sue-warner-bros-making-batman-too-violent.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>um,-really,-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120724/10573119811</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:10:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Press Speculates Batman Shooter Must Have Played Video Games; They're Right: He Loved Guitar Hero</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/05472819794/press-speculates-batman-shooter-must-have-played-video-games-theyre-right-he-loved-guitar-hero.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/05472819794/press-speculates-batman-shooter-must-have-played-video-games-theyre-right-he-loved-guitar-hero.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I&#39;m going to assume that most of us are by now aware of the tragedy that occurred late last week, when an Aurora, Colorado theatre showing the new Batman movie was allegedly shot up by a James Holmes for whatever reasons people like him have for this kind of depravity. I&#39;ll refrain from discussing any details about the shooting, since that&#39;s not really apropros for Techdirt. However, I did notice something that seemed worth pointing out.<br />
<br />
First, Reason has been keeping a running list of all the things <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/20/half-assed-media-speculation-about-the-b">politicians and media pundits are blaming for the shooting</a> (hat-tip to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/user/ezacharyk">E. Zachary Knight</a> for the link). For those of you keeping score at home, based on the aggregate blame-machine that that article has counted up, the shooting can so far be blamed on: The Tea Party, a lack of Christianity throughout the country, bullying, Star Trek (not kidding), or Occupy Wall Street. And, of course, video games.<br />
<br />
The organization responsible for the salvo against gaming is CNN, via Pat Brown, who stated his stance simply:
<blockquote>
<i>"Teenage psychopaths get inspired by [video games] and want to make it real"</i>
</blockquote>
Interestingly, I was somewhat heartened (as much as one can be in a situation like this) that I had <i>not</i> seen such a rush to judgment against violent video games in this case, particularly considering that this whole tragedy occurred mere miles from Columbine, where violent video games were skewered over a decade ago. But maybe there is a good reason we aren&#39;t seeing violent games being blamed in this case: because suspect James Holmes apparently didn&#39;t play them. He is apparently known for playing video games, <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/james-holmes-shooter-guitar-hero-dark-knight/">but not of the violent variety</a> (via TMZ):
<blockquote>
<i>"one of<b> </b>James Holmes&#39; classmates at the University of California at Riverside played Guitar Hero with the shooter all the time, and "for hours."<br />
<br />
The male student is telling friends he is "shocked," never having had a clue that Holmes had a propensity for violence. It&#39;s an interesting side note, because people with violent tendencies often act them out in various ways, and video games are definitely an outlet."</i>
</blockquote>
The point that needs to be made is that we&#39;re likely not going to understand what motivated James Holmes to do what he did for a long time, if at all, and the rush for media members and political forces to judge a tragic situation through their own biased viewpoints rather than to simply wait for the facts to bear themselves out is dangerous.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/05472819794/press-speculates-batman-shooter-must-have-played-video-games-theyre-right-he-loved-guitar-hero.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/05472819794/press-speculates-batman-shooter-must-have-played-video-games-theyre-right-he-loved-guitar-hero.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/05472819794/press-speculates-batman-shooter-must-have-played-video-games-theyre-right-he-loved-guitar-hero.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>unless-you-want-to-blame-guitar-hero-i-guess</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120723/05472819794</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Does Batman Need Copyright Protection?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/18025319772/does-batman-need-copyright-protection.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/18025319772/does-batman-need-copyright-protection.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With the release of the latest <i>Batman</i> movie, Jeffrey Tucker makes an interesting point: <a href="http://lfb.org/blog/but-who-will-guard-batmans-intellectual-property/" target="_blank">does the movie really even need any copyright protection to make money</a>?  It's almost guaranteed that the film will be both widely available in unauthorized forms online... and will make an absolute ton of money:
<blockquote><i>
We all know that in a matter of weeks or even days, there will be streamed copies online. There could be hundreds and thousands of them. At first, the quality will be terrible. Later, the quality will improve. By this time next year, you will be able to download an HD copy of your own without too much trouble. And this is despite the millions and billions of dollars, and the gigantic apparatus of the state, plus all the warnings and jails, dedicated to preventing this inevitable thing.
<br /><br />
And yet: what does it matter? &#8220;Dark Knight Rises&#8221; will still make a zillion dollars. I like millions of others will shell out to see it in the theater of course. Like everyone else, I want to consume it sooner rather than later. Sure, I could save $11 bucks by waiting but there&#8217;s a time-preference issue. The movie makers are going to make a mint with clever management, clever marketing, and a high-quality product. In other words, they will make money the old-fashioned way: getting people something they want in a form in which they want to consume it.
<br /><br />
I can easily imagine that not much would be different about this scenario if there were no IP &#8212; except that a major element of fear and force would be purged from the system and consumers would no longer be treated as the thieving enemy. 
</i></blockquote>
It's possible that without IP certain aspects of the marketing and monetization plan would be <i>different</i>, but it seems likely that the movie would still bring in a ton of money.  As we've seen over and over again, people pay for what they like (and to support creators they like), if offered in a reasonable and convenient package.   And yet, there's this myth that goes around that without aggressive IP laws <i>and</i> aggressive IP enforcement, it's impossible for content creators to make money.  That just doesn't seem to be supported by reality.  As some copyright holders have noted -- often derisively -- paying today has <i>already</i> become somewhat voluntary.  Whether or not we agree with this or think it's a good or bad thing, it's basically a fact.  And, it's also a fact that an awful lot of people are handing over cash to watch this movie via official channels.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/18025319772/does-batman-need-copyright-protection.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/18025319772/does-batman-need-copyright-protection.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/18025319772/does-batman-need-copyright-protection.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>maybe-not</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120719/18025319772</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:17:01 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Holy Conflict Of Interest! Tell Congress That The Public Good Is More Important Than Their Chance To Cameo In Batman</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/14310819747/holy-conflict-interest-tell-congress-that-public-good-is-more-important-than-their-chance-to-cameo-batman.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/14310819747/holy-conflict-interest-tell-congress-that-public-good-is-more-important-than-their-chance-to-cameo-batman.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently wrote about the fact that PIPA sponsor and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Patrick Leahy has received <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11435319567/pipa-author-senator-leahy-gets-his-reward-part-dark-knight-rises.shtml">yet another cameo</a> appearance in the latest <i>Batman</i> flick.  We're sure it's because of his acting skills, rather than his ability to pass legislation that favors Time Warner (who -- coincidentally, of course -- is a major contributor to his campaigns).  In response to this story, the good folks at Demand Progress have set up <a href="http://www.holyconflictofinterest.com/" target="_blank">HolyConflictOfInterest.com</a> with an original comic, "The Adventures of Leahy & Time Warner":
<center>
<a href="http://www.holyconflictofinterest.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/mChiW.jpg" width=560 /></a>
</center>
Click through not just for a larger version, but also for tools from Demand Progress that let you tell your elected officials that you don't appreciate such conflicts of interest.
<br /><br />
<b>Update</b>: By the way, we're hearing that the MPAA hosted a "special screening" of the new Batman movie for members of Congress and their staff.  Now, that would normally run afoul of gift giving guidelines... but they worked around that by spending the first 15 minutes "educating members and staff on important issues" (take a guess what those might be).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/14310819747/holy-conflict-interest-tell-congress-that-public-good-is-more-important-than-their-chance-to-cameo-batman.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/14310819747/holy-conflict-interest-tell-congress-that-public-good-is-more-important-than-their-chance-to-cameo-batman.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/14310819747/holy-conflict-interest-tell-congress-that-public-good-is-more-important-than-their-chance-to-cameo-batman.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>check-it-out</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120718/14310819747</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Jul 2012 19:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>PIPA Author Senator Leahy Gets His Reward: A Part In 'The Dark Knight Rises'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11435319567/pipa-author-senator-leahy-gets-his-reward-part-dark-knight-rises.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11435319567/pipa-author-senator-leahy-gets-his-reward-part-dark-knight-rises.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I heard from more than a few people that Senator Patrick Leahy would never be convinced of his distorted views on copyright for one key reason: he <i>loves</i> the way Hollywood puts him in movies -- with Batman being a particular infatuation.  As you can see on Leahy's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0495004/" target="_blank">IMDB page</a> (yes, he has one), he appeared in both the Batman TV series and <i>The Dark Knight</i>.  Now, it's being reported that he's <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/07/patrick-leahy-makes-another-dark-knight-cameo-127964.html" target="_blank">also making an appearance in the upcoming <i>The Dark Knight Rises</i></a>, where he gets to appear in a scene with Christian Bale.  Of course, normally you might think that this kind of thing, something that Leahy is clearly excited about and proud of, would count as a "gift" and potentially run afoul of <a href="http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts" target="_blank">Senate ethics rules</a>.  It's not as if the studio is putting him in these films because of his acting chops...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11435319567/pipa-author-senator-leahy-gets-his-reward-part-dark-knight-rises.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11435319567/pipa-author-senator-leahy-gets-his-reward-part-dark-knight-rises.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11435319567/pipa-author-senator-leahy-gets-his-reward-part-dark-knight-rises.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-there-you-go</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120703/11435319567</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Kids Don't Just Eat Anything You Give Them...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Kids are notoriously picky eaters when it comes to anything that isn't a dessert. Parents aren't helped when their kids are bombarded by ads on TV for all kinds of junk food. But here are a few food efforts that might divert kids' attentions back to healthier foods.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-news/press-releases/2012/06/walt-disney-company-sets-new-standards-food-advertising-kids" href="http://bit.ly/LyCkaT">Disney is adopting new standards for food advertising on its shows targeting kids and families -- to promote fruit and vegetable consumption and meet healthy nutritional guidelines.</a> Awesome, now all healthy food will be approved by Mickey! [<a href="http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-news/press-releases/2012/06/walt-disney-company-sets-new-standards-food-advertising-kids">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May12/BatmanFood.html" href="http://bit.ly/MjLVas">Mickey Mouse isn't the only fictional character who can influence what kids eat. Superheroes can, too.</a> What would Batman eat? [<a href="http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May12/BatmanFood.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/05/29/153931434/food-trucks-draw-hungry-kids-for-free-summer-meals? " href="http://n.pr/LyCNtQ">Food trucks are trendy now, so what better way to bring free meals to kids?</a> Sounds better than an ice cream truck... [<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/05/29/153931434/food-trucks-draw-hungry-kids-for-free-summer-meals? ">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577422761220716518.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_6" href="http://on.wsj.com/NkJINv">Exercise your palate and try new foods that are bitter.</a> Instead of sticking with salty and sweet (which are generally associated with junk food), a more bitter-flavored diet might provide a healthier range of food. [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577422761220716518.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_6">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To discover more food-related links, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102" href="http://bit.ly/iaJVJd">check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04270610103/dailydirt-kids-dont-just-eat-anything-you-give-them.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100707/04270610103</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:22:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Do You Promote A Bad DRM Scheme? With A Bad Movie Of Course</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/15021916798/how-do-you-promote-bad-drm-scheme-with-bad-movie-course.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/15021916798/how-do-you-promote-bad-drm-scheme-with-bad-movie-course.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Recently, we were talking about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/12064316454/hollywoods-kinder-gentler-drm-ultraviolet-getting-slammed-reviews.shtml">horrible customer reviews</a> that Warner's Ultraviolet DRM was getting. These customers were having such a hard time trying to justify the headache that came from complying with the requirements to watch their legally purchased movies. Warner seems to be trying to make the service worthwhile and is now bundling free digital movies with video games. If you buy <i>Batman: Arkham City</i>, you will also get a digital Batman movie for free. Which movie will you get? <a href="http://kotaku.com/5860187/gamestops-ultraviolet-anti+incentive-buy-a-great-batman-game-stream-a-crappy-batman-movie-for-free" target="_blank"><i>Batman Forever</i> of course</a>. Wait. What? If the goal of these promotions is to get people to start using the service, wouldn't you think they would try giving away a movie people would actually want to watch? As opposed to the <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_forever/" target="_blank">worst Batman flick ever</a>? 
<br /><center><a href="http://imgur.com/A4UYg"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/A4UYg.png" alt="" width="450" /></a></center><br /> I guess the people running Warner just don't realize that customers want quality content. Sadly, when you are offering crap to customers there really isn't much you can do to polish it up. Maybe the next deal will actually be worth it. Most likely not though.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/15021916798/how-do-you-promote-bad-drm-scheme-with-bad-movie-course.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/15021916798/how-do-you-promote-bad-drm-scheme-with-bad-movie-course.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/15021916798/how-do-you-promote-bad-drm-scheme-with-bad-movie-course.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bad-gets-worse</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111116/15021916798</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:27:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Want Revenue From Used Games? Just Have GameStop Buy DLC Codes For The Customer</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/08203116363/want-revenue-used-games-just-have-gamestop-buy-dlc-codes-customer.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/08203116363/want-revenue-used-games-just-have-gamestop-buy-dlc-codes-customer.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We all know that many game companies are really upset about being locked out of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110824/01364015649/more-misplaced-hatred-used-games-market.shtml">used games</a> revenue stream. Warner happens to be one of those companies. With the release of <em>Batman: Arkham City</em>, Warner is giving a free code to new game buyers that lets the gamer play as Catwoman during the game. If you buy the game used, you will need to buy a new code to access Catwoman. That is if you buy it used anywhere other than GameStop. 
<br /><br /> 
<a href="http://kotaku.com/5849828/dont-fret-used-gamers-gamestop-has-catwoman-codes-for-preowned-arkham-city-purchasers" target="_blank">According to a memo sent to Kotaku</a>, Warner and GameStop have partnered up to give free codes to buyers of used copies of <em>Batman</em>. Granted, GameStop is most likely paying for these codes for the customer and is most likely getting them at a discounted rate. This happens to be a great deal for both companies and even some customers. Warner gets the satisfaction of capturing used game revenue with a reduced risk of customers deciding not to buy the redemption code. GameStop gets a leg up on the competition which don't have the same deal. Finally, customers of GameStop don't have to shell out the extra cash to play as Catwoman. 
<br /><br /> 
This is an interesting move on Warner's part. GameStop is the poster child for the evils of used games, according to many games industry veterans. However, even the toughest critic of GameStop's policies recognizes the power this one brand has over the game consumer, thus the deal. If GameStop is willing to make such a deal with Warner, would they be willing to do the same with other companies such as EA or Ubisoft? 
<br /><br /> 
Of course, there are additional ramifications to consider. How will this affect the relationship with other game stores, both in and outside the US, which don't have the same leveraging power? Will those smaller stores be coerced into deals that are not as sweet for them and their customers? Regardless of the ramifications, it is nice to see a company actually be proactive about capturing used games revenue rather than just complain and punish players. Why can't more companies act this way?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/08203116363/want-revenue-used-games-just-have-gamestop-buy-dlc-codes-customer.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/08203116363/want-revenue-used-games-just-have-gamestop-buy-dlc-codes-customer.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/08203116363/want-revenue-used-games-just-have-gamestop-buy-dlc-codes-customer.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-one-way</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111014/08203116363</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:05:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Batty Trademark Dispute</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22461310976.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22461310976.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Not quite sure what to make of this one, but the Consumerist alerts us to <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/09/dc-comics-goes-batty-sues-bbq-restaurant-for-trademark-infringement.html" target="_blank">a bit of a trademark dispute between DC Comics and a small BBQ restaurant called BATS</a>.  Apparently, the restaurant's name comes from the names of its owners, "Beau And TraviS' restaurant," and they designed the following logo:
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/4985217285/" title="batslogo by floorsixtyfour, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/4985217285_3400d9a204.jpg" width="300" height="189" border=0 /></a>
</center>
Now, that clearly does have some similarities to the Batman logo, even though they insist "Our bat is not their bat."  In fact, they're correct that the bats are not the same.  As someone in the comments on the Consumerist post notes, the actual Batman logos, which have morphed over time, are ever so slightly <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKR_4kRDR9s" target="_blank">different</a> from this logo:
<center>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AKR_4kRDR9s?fs=1&#038;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AKR_4kRDR9s?fs=1&#038;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
</center>

  But, of course, that doesn't matter.  All that really matters is if there's a likelihood of confusion in areas for which DC has the trademark or (potentially) if DC can make a case of dilution.  Given how many people see the logo and pretty much immediately think "Batman," DC probably can make a strong "likelihood of confusion" case.  The restaurant owners are apprently fighting DC, specifically by suggesting that DC's trademarks on Batman don't extend into the restaurant space, but that does seem like it might be a difficult sell.  At best, it's a total crap shoot based on the judge -- and given the cost of fighting a trademark battle over such a logo, this is one where it actually seems like it could make more sense to just change the logo.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22461310976.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22461310976.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22461310976.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pow!-blam!-trademark!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100912/22461310976</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:20:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Dark Knight... Both Most Pirated And Highest Earning Movie</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0400182867.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0400182867.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall when <i>The Dark Knight</i> opened, we pointed out that its record breaking opening was because movie makers created a movie that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2256451753.shtml">people <i>wanted</i> to see in a theater</a>.  The fact that parts of the movie were designed for IMAX theaters drove many people to pay even more (or even see the movie multiple times) in order to experience the IMAX version, which simply can't be replicated at home.  As we pointed out, this was a perfect example of how the movie studios could compete with free.  In fact, in such a scenario, you could even make the argument that the more people saw the movie in download format, the more willing they would be to go pay to see the IMAX version, to get the full experience.
<br /><br />
However, it was stunning to hear movie industry execs then claim that the <i>reason</i> the movie was so successful was <i>because</i> of their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1012151810.shtml">anti-piracy efforts</a>.  That was clearly untrue at the time, and now <a href="http://blogcampaigning.com">Parker Mason</a> alerts us to the fact that <i>The Dark Knight</i> was not just the biggest grossing film, but <a href="http://io9.com/5091139/why-so-copyrighted" target="_new">also the most pirated film of the year</a>.  Of course, if you believed the studio execs, that would be impossible.  After all, if so many people are downloading the movie, then clearly they're "stealing" from the industry and would never go see the movie.  But, seeing that the movie made record profits, it seems to show that's simply incorrect.  Many people, reasonably, viewed the download as <i>marketing</i>, convincing them to go see the movie in the theaters.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0400182867.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0400182867.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0400182867.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-does-that-tell-you?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081118/0400182867</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Batman, The City, Sues Over Batman, The Movie</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0316272787.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0316272787.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Another day, another ridiculous intellectual property fight.  Remember Lebanon <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/1531482481.shtml">claiming</a> ownership over hummus?  This is worse.  Apparently, there's a city in Turkey named <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman,_Turkey">Batman</a>.  Guess what they're now claiming?  You got it.  They believe that the Batman movies are violating the rights to the name, and <a href="http://io9.com/5079815/batman-sues-christopher-nolan-over-success-of-the-dark-knight" target="_new">are threatening to sue Chris Nolan</a>, who directed the last two Batman movies.  Apparently the town is facing some financial difficulties, and a reporter jokingly (I hope) asked the mayor why he didn't sue over the name, and the mayor took it seriously.
<br /><br />
Of course, beyond the sheer ridiculousness of it all, it's not clear why they're suing Chris Nolan, rather than DC Comics or Warner Bros., but that's apparently the plan.  You have to believe that any actual lawsuit will get laughed out of court pretty quickly, but it is rather telling that a mayor would even consider such a lawsuit.  That's what happens when you get people believing that "ownership" of names makes sense.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0316272787.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0316272787.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0316272787.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seriously</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081110/0316272787</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:22:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Zango's Latest Trick: Pitching Fake Batman MMORPG To Get People To Download Adware</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0341372202.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0341372202.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about Zango's continued claims that it's a changed company from the one that paid huge fines for tricking people into downloading its intrusive adware, but somethings never really seem to change.  An anonymous reader points us to an ad found on a bunch of legitimate video game sites recently, <a href="http://blog.spywareguide.com/2008/09/zango-and-the-batman-online-vi.html" target="_new">pitching a new Batman online virtual world game</a>, but if you click through, it turns out that it's just a severely limited demo version of a client-side Batman game from 2001.  Despite the ad promising all sorts of things, such as "play online with your friends" the actual download has none of that... but it does include an install of Zango.  Chris Boyd, who figured all this out wonders why the sites that ran this ad did so, knowing that it was almost certainly bogus.  Zango, of course, will blame a "rogue affiliate" which is what they always do -- but Boyd wonders why they won't actually identify who's responsible.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0341372202.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0341372202.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0341372202.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-so-it-goes</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080908/0341372202</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:25:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>MPAA Still Clueless; Claims Anti-Piracy Is Why Dark Knight Had A Huge Opening</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1012151810.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1012151810.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, we wrote about how the massively successful opening of <i>The Dark Knight</i> showed (once again) how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2256451753.shtml">little</a> an impact "piracy" has on movies.  But don't tell the movie industry that.  The LA Times is running a bizarre article with movie industry folks claiming that <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-darkknight28-2008jul28,0,725543.story" target="_new">their anti-piracy efforts are the real reason the movie was so successful in the theaters</a>.  Never mind the awesome reviews.  Never mind the fact that many people wanted to see the movie in IMAX (which you can't replicate at home).  Never mind the fact that going out to the movies is still a social experience.  Never mind the fact that the movie <i>was</i> available online soon after it was released (despite what the article claims).
<br /><br />
Instead, the movie guys rely on a single anecdote: the story about how the <i>Hulk</i> movie from a few summers ago leaked online, got terrible reviews and then no one went to see it.  The industry uses that to claim that a leaked movie does tons of damage to box office sales, but they play down the importance of the bad reviews.  If you make a <i>bad</i> movie, then yes, word of mouth will stop people from going.  But if you make a <i>good</i> movie -- and most critics agree <i>The Dark Knight</i> is an excellent movie -- then word of mouth will make <i>more</i> people want to go out and experience it in the theater.  About the only thing the LA Times article shows is just how much money the MPAA wasted in its efforts to keep the movie from appearing online prior to release.  For that, it maybe saved them a few hours (much less than claimed in the article), which probably had almost no impact on ticket sales.  Until the movie industry realizes that it's the <i>experience</i> they're selling, beyond just the content, it sounds like they're going to be throwing a lot more money down this anti-piracy hole than they're actually "losing" to piracy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1012151810.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1012151810.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1012151810.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>are-these-people-serious?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080728/1012151810</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dark Knight Proves Again: Give People A Reason To Go To The Movies And They Will</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2256451753.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2256451753.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While the MPAA still wants you to believe that movie piracy is a huge problem, it's never quite able to explain how the movies that are most likely to be available for free online also happen to be the biggest box office winners.  The latest example is with <i>The Dark Knight</i>, the latest Batman installment.  It's getting tremendous reviews and <a href="http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/07/dark-knight.html" target="_new">had a record opening week, despite the fact that you could download it online</a>.  This isn't a surprise.  Piracy has never really been a threat to the movie business -- which has <i>always</i> been more about selling the experience than the movie itself.  And, things are even better with <i>The Dark Knight</i> because it's actually designed to look amazing on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080323/235714627.shtml">IMAX screens</a>, which is an experience you just can't replicate at home.  Somehow, though, we doubt the MPAA will give up its pointless claims about the "threat" of movie downloads.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2256451753.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2256451753.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080721/2256451753.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>silly-MPAA</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080721/2256451753</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>