Go to any stock image site and you'll find hundreds of vaguely similar photoshopped or rendered images for sale. You'll find plenty for free as well.
But the point is this guy created it; he owns it. It doesn't matter whether anyone else thinks it has any artistic merit, or whether they believe his claim for how much it cost him to create, or whether they think he was a dumbass for not doing it with 3d animation; it's his.
So I think he's entitled to try and stop people like the BBC and CBS using it as a free stock image to illustrate unrelated stories.
For what it's worth, it looks to me like he really did hire a studio, set up 500 TVs, tune them in and probably take scores of photos to get the perfect one. Nice job.
They cite headquarters specifically, not physical location of the servers hosting the database. So if the registry merged with or was taken over by a company in a different state (let's say Virginia since someone mentioned it above) and its headquarters was no longer in California, then all those hapless domain name owners could suddenly find themselves subject to a different jurisdiction - even if all the registry's employees and all the same servers stayed there in the same building in California, just because somewhere else was designated as the HQ.
From the court ruling:
[9] Because VeriSign has its headquarters in the Northern
District of California, the district court had quasi in rem jurisdiction over the domain names registered with VeriSign for purposes of appointing a receiver to assist in executing a judgment against the owner of the names.
> Newspapers could also be said to belong to the group of non-paper-based products that includes aluminum foil, plastic wrap, and duct tape.
No, because they don't use "similar underlying technology."
I am agreeing with the observation that all blogs should not be lumped together. I am also saying just because it CAN be said doesn't mean that it SHOULD be because in this case it is incorrect.
"To lump them all in as one homogeneous group because they all use a similar underlying technology doesn't really make much sense."
That's a good point, of course. Newspapers could be said to belong to the group of paper-based products that includes library books, parking tickets and toilet paper.
It's not a fair competition anyway. AP can send a C&D on two counts since BOTH pictures infringe their claimed copyrights.
And "Nation of Laws"? Gimme a break. Most of the garbage that passes for law is what some smart-arse lawyer has got some dumb-ass judge to rule on, based on what some head-up-his-ass legislator passed into law without bothering to read the paper.
An absurd law can only be challenged by demonstrating its absurdity.
There's a good point to be made about "embedded" journos everywhere, from the White House of course but also to Wall Street as Jon Stewart so cleverly pointed out on the Daily Show. They add no value, they are worthless in the literal sense, so yes, why not chop them?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Cyberpoint.
I'm shocked
You mean "Anonymous Coward" really is anonymous? I thought he was some witty and insightful über-blogger. Or she.
Frankly, it's ingenious
Think of all the paperbacks Tesco already sells, they're just re-publishing them in a different format.
Once they've had the film made the run-on costs of putting a DVD on the shelves is negligible.
They pick best sellers guaranteed to sell in the thousands.
And think of the sales at airports and railway stations to all those travellers with a portable DVD player.
His artwork
I'm with this guy, actually, which surprises me.
Go to any stock image site and you'll find hundreds of vaguely similar photoshopped or rendered images for sale. You'll find plenty for free as well.
But the point is this guy created it; he owns it. It doesn't matter whether anyone else thinks it has any artistic merit, or whether they believe his claim for how much it cost him to create, or whether they think he was a dumbass for not doing it with 3d animation; it's his.
So I think he's entitled to try and stop people like the BBC and CBS using it as a free stock image to illustrate unrelated stories.
For what it's worth, it looks to me like he really did hire a studio, set up 500 TVs, tune them in and probably take scores of photos to get the perfect one. Nice job.
A can of worms on wheels
They cite headquarters specifically, not physical location of the servers hosting the database. So if the registry merged with or was taken over by a company in a different state (let's say Virginia since someone mentioned it above) and its headquarters was no longer in California, then all those hapless domain name owners could suddenly find themselves subject to a different jurisdiction - even if all the registry's employees and all the same servers stayed there in the same building in California, just because somewhere else was designated as the HQ. From the court ruling: [9] Because VeriSign has its headquarters in the Northern District of California, the district court had quasi in rem jurisdiction over the domain names registered with VeriSign for purposes of appointing a receiver to assist in executing a judgment against the owner of the names.
Re: Re: Re: @#11 - Mark Griffin
Is there any point to this? Or do you just like wasting people's time?
Re: @#11 - Mark Griffin
> Newspapers could also be said to belong to the group of non-paper-based products that includes aluminum foil, plastic wrap, and duct tape.
No, because they don't use "similar underlying technology."
I am agreeing with the observation that all blogs should not be lumped together. I am also saying just because it CAN be said doesn't mean that it SHOULD be because in this case it is incorrect.
"To lump them all in as one homogeneous group because they all use a similar underlying technology doesn't really make much sense."
That's a good point, of course. Newspapers could be said to belong to the group of paper-based products that includes library books, parking tickets and toilet paper.
So where would you turn to first for news?
:-)
Two to One Advantage
It's not a fair competition anyway. AP can send a C&D on two counts since BOTH pictures infringe their claimed copyrights.
And "Nation of Laws"? Gimme a break. Most of the garbage that passes for law is what some smart-arse lawyer has got some dumb-ass judge to rule on, based on what some head-up-his-ass legislator passed into law without bothering to read the paper.
An absurd law can only be challenged by demonstrating its absurdity.
someone to create an archive site
The WayBackMachine has been running for maybe fifteen years or more initially, I seem to recall, just archiving USENET groups but now everything:
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Cheerleaders, not reporters
There's a good point to be made about "embedded" journos everywhere, from the White House of course but also to Wall Street as Jon Stewart so cleverly pointed out on the Daily Show. They add no value, they are worthless in the literal sense, so yes, why not chop them?