"How the hell are we going to prosecute him when he begins eating brains?"
Clearly not something the judge needs to worry about, he's obviously not zombie food grade. And he's already ruled the guy's dead, so doesn't have to worry about prosecuting the guy either.
You can't say he didn't come up with the perfect CYA verdict --at least for himself.
"White Rabbit" also did rather well. Grace Slick could be as 'creative' with the story as she wanted to be... The point of 'copy right' has pretty much become outdated with the digital age --it was becoming ever more irrelevant to the end user many years before that. We are just living through it's (rather ugly) death throes. The belief in endless 'entitlement' is always difficult to eradicate.
excerpt (year 2000):
In Network Solutions Inc. v. Umbro International Inc., decided on April 21, Umbro sought to garnish several domain names owned by another company in order to collect money that was owed to Umbro. Umbro filed a garnishment action against Network Solutions, Inc., the company that registers Internet domain names. Umbro tried to have Network Solutions turn over the domain names so that the name could be sold to the highest bidder to satisfy the amount owed. The lower court ruled that domain names were a type of intangible property that could be "garnished" and sold to satisfy the amount owed under Virginia’s garnishment statute.
The Virginia Supreme Court reversed the lower court, ruling that the rights in a domain name were so intertwined with the services performed by Network Solutions registering the domain name, that a domain name instead represented a contract for services, rather than intellectual property. The Court concluded that since the domain name was merely a contract for services, it was not subject to seizure and court ordered sale under Virginia’s garnishment statute.
So it is in Virginia, but it's still prior precedent. Of course the standard IANAL applies.
I couldn't care less about some sleazy person, but the tax ramifications do matter. (along with several other aspects of what is or is not 'property').
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by D. Hensley.
"How the hell are we going to prosecute him when he begins eating brains?"
Clearly not something the judge needs to worry about, he's obviously not zombie food grade. And he's already ruled the guy's dead, so doesn't have to worry about prosecuting the guy either.
You can't say he didn't come up with the perfect CYA verdict --at least for himself.
Who's news?
"pay Rupert Murdoch to access his news"
No one owns news. Possibly they own the report they generate about some news, but not the news it's self. This is why pay walls will always fail.
Not just movies
"White Rabbit" also did rather well. Grace Slick could be as 'creative' with the story as she wanted to be... The point of 'copy right' has pretty much become outdated with the digital age --it was becoming ever more irrelevant to the end user many years before that. We are just living through it's (rather ugly) death throes. The belief in endless 'entitlement' is always difficult to eradicate.
There is a prior opine that domain names are not property
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a domain name is not "intellectual property," but rather is a "contract for services."
Link: http://www.gtlaw.com/NewsEvents/Publications/PublishedArticles?find=83310
excerpt (year 2000):
In Network Solutions Inc. v. Umbro International Inc., decided on April 21, Umbro sought to garnish several domain names owned by another company in order to collect money that was owed to Umbro. Umbro filed a garnishment action against Network Solutions, Inc., the company that registers Internet domain names. Umbro tried to have Network Solutions turn over the domain names so that the name could be sold to the highest bidder to satisfy the amount owed. The lower court ruled that domain names were a type of intangible property that could be "garnished" and sold to satisfy the amount owed under Virginia’s garnishment statute.
The Virginia Supreme Court reversed the lower court, ruling that the rights in a domain name were so intertwined with the services performed by Network Solutions registering the domain name, that a domain name instead represented a contract for services, rather than intellectual property. The Court concluded that since the domain name was merely a contract for services, it was not subject to seizure and court ordered sale under Virginia’s garnishment statute.
So it is in Virginia, but it's still prior precedent. Of course the standard IANAL applies.
I couldn't care less about some sleazy person, but the tax ramifications do matter. (along with several other aspects of what is or is not 'property').