1) The "merchandise" that he was selling (for which he now owes 17K) were his OWN ORIGINAL ART of the character. Convention sketches, etc. -- a common practice (every comics convention has an "artists alley"). As the comics press has said, this is Marvel putting "a bullet in the head of artists' alley."
How exactly was this his own original art when he was the writer, not the graphic artist?
None of the groups mentioned are part of any interest group that floods congress with money.
They're just people who have a grasp on common sense and what the 1st amendment is for as well as what's in the best interests of the people of this country, not just the lobbying groups.
In other words, they have next to zero chance of being listened to.
Is that the police are interpreting a law that band the addition of flashing emergency lights to a vehicle to retaliate against people warning against the speed traps.
Nearly all of the tickets that have been contested in court have been thrown out. The FHP has told officers to stop giving tickets out for this activity until a judge rules on the legality.
Well the court has somehow ruled that confiscating things like cars and cash from people suspected of crimes such as drug trafficking is perfectly legitimate even if the person is never charged or convicted of committing a crime, so they may have an uphill battle here.
From the article - puts the lawyer's assertion that no question should remain in better context:
"Righthaven and Stephens Media have altered their licensing arrangement in a bid to obtain legal standing, Gibson said. The agreement has always granted each side a 50 percent stake in settlements and verdicts.
The altered arrangement, however, has not been tested in court. Hunt, however, labeled the licensing changes “cosmetic,” but declined to rule if the new agreement gives Righthaven the right to sue.:
The war on drugs has been eroding the 4th amendment for almost 30 years now. The war on terror has further eroded it. Now the war on cybercrime will make it even more meaningless I'm sure.
DirecTV makes a big deal about them showing movies the day they hit DVD on the PPV channels - "Can't get it through the mail or at that kiosk in the store" is their advertisement.
Possibly the movie companies have a contract with DTV and others for this?
Re: The Reality, and The Fundraiser
1) The "merchandise" that he was selling (for which he now owes 17K) were his OWN ORIGINAL ART of the character. Convention sketches, etc. -- a common practice (every comics convention has an "artists alley"). As the comics press has said, this is Marvel putting "a bullet in the head of artists' alley."
How exactly was this his own original art when he was the writer, not the graphic artist?
hmmmm
This most likely means that now every Republican will vote for it just simply because Obama state he's opposed to it
Huh.
Weasel words - they're still not opposed to SOPA, they're just trying to appease the people who took a stand.
Glad I transferred my domains last night.
yes but...
None of the groups mentioned are part of any interest group that floods congress with money.
They're just people who have a grasp on common sense and what the 1st amendment is for as well as what's in the best interests of the people of this country, not just the lobbying groups.
In other words, they have next to zero chance of being listened to.
yeah, i'm cynical.
part of the problem
Is that the police are interpreting a law that band the addition of flashing emergency lights to a vehicle to retaliate against people warning against the speed traps.
Nearly all of the tickets that have been contested in court have been thrown out. The FHP has told officers to stop giving tickets out for this activity until a judge rules on the legality.
(untitled comment)
Well the court has somehow ruled that confiscating things like cars and cash from people suspected of crimes such as drug trafficking is perfectly legitimate even if the person is never charged or convicted of committing a crime, so they may have an uphill battle here.
It's a crazy kind of world.
A bit more context to the quote regarding Righthaven's standing to sue
From the article - puts the lawyer's assertion that no question should remain in better context:
"Righthaven and Stephens Media have altered their licensing arrangement in a bid to obtain legal standing, Gibson said. The agreement has always granted each side a 50 percent stake in settlements and verdicts.
The altered arrangement, however, has not been tested in court. Hunt, however, labeled the licensing changes “cosmetic,” but declined to rule if the new agreement gives Righthaven the right to sue.:
(untitled comment)
Waiting for them to consider submitting quietly and politely to be suspicious behavior that warrants more intrusive checking.
(untitled comment)
Still, it does seem they needed a bit of government money to make the last step? Or does the grant system mean something else?
Good work though.
JAWA has already threatened to sue AZDisruptors
sent an absolutely absurd C&D accusing Hamid of criminal activity, defamation, etc. They even got the blog shut down briefly by the hosting company.
Classy.
http://www.azdisruptors.com/blog/2011/3/28/my-apology-offer-to-jawa-jason-hop e.html
(untitled comment)
Don't these look like the kind of patents they argue should be easier to invalidate in the i4i case?
(untitled comment)
The war on drugs has been eroding the 4th amendment for almost 30 years now. The war on terror has further eroded it. Now the war on cybercrime will make it even more meaningless I'm sure.
PPV perhaps? (as Scott)
DirecTV makes a big deal about them showing movies the day they hit DVD on the PPV channels - "Can't get it through the mail or at that kiosk in the store" is their advertisement.
Possibly the movie companies have a contract with DTV and others for this?