While this may sound like they're re-hashing old ideas, they're simply continuing ideas they've been working on for decades. All major car makers have been making alternative fuel vehicles since the 70s and the oil crisis then. However, very few were ever successful because they simply couldn't compete with the mileage gasoline-powered cars were getting.
No one's actually stopped making EVs/PHEVs since the 70s, they're mostly destined for things like fleet vehicles and developing countries.
According to Appendix B of Title 17 US Code of Law (or the DMCA of 1998 as it's commonly known), eBay was -- at first -- pretty much scott free as they were not knowingly letting the auction take place with any intent of letting fallacious transitory information pass through their service. I believe Section 512(a) of Title 17 spells out the limited liability a service provider has (it's either 512(a) or 512(i), I forget which).
However, now that they've "ignored" 8 prior takdedowns, are they now an accessory to trademark infringement? Truthfully, more than likely. Since Hansson is no doubt a legally registered trademark and their products are copyrighted, their 8 dismissals and failure to act C&D now make eBay an accessory. Of course, Hansson's name may be trademarked but their items may not be copyrighted so the takedowns could at that point be null and void since a legal infringment must only occur for media that has been previously copyrighted by the Copyright Office (at least for finite goods).
At worst, eBay's lawyers will end up burying Hansson Inc. over some legalese technicality but at best, they'll be an accessory to trademark fraud/copyright infringment along with severe due professional negligence.
Although, IANAL (I just do this same thing everyday at work).
While he's somewhat right in the fact that watching movies on a mobile phone is a bit stupid -- really, who wants to? -- but he's far off the mark as far as computers go. I'd rather watch a movie on my widescreen computer monitor than on my own TV. The quality is so much better and that's how a lot of people watch movies. Not everyone can afford a $2000USD+ TV with a nice sound system but we can afford nice monitors and headphones.
However, Mike, you too have a point. The MPAA gave up on pleasing its customers a long time ago, movie theaters too. With the cost of going to see a movie rising every year to make up for bloated budgets on every "must see" movie (which they all are touted to be, doesn't matter what it is) and everyone being thought of as a pirate, it's financially more feasible to rent the DVD in 3-6 months and watch the same movie for about $5USD. Big studios only want to produce big flashy movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator instead of making movies that are actually watchable like they used to do. They see no money in making intelligent movies or movies with a plot, everyone wants explosions and choreographed kung fu.
If Scott thinks the things that makes making most movies possible (computers, technology in general) are killing the industry, why doesn't he just make more movies worth watching to balance out the technophobia?
So many people are selfishly focusing on themselves or America and how rights are being infringed upon. This is insane to read.
The government wants to mandate usage of more efficient bulbs in lights. WOW! Big deal. Most countries in the EU and Britain outlawed, or are in the process of outlawing, incandescent lights because they're seriously inefficient. No one's complaining about the fact that they're saving money and the governments have recouped millions in energy expenditures. In turn, that also means less fossil fuels are burned to light your house up.
For the last 4 years, I've had to deal with blacklists of various sizes and scopes and a number of them are slowly becoming havens for false positives. This is becoming increasingly more true -- and visible -- in the realm of spam blacklists.
I've written about this for a few months now, especially about those boneheads at Verizon, and I've been watching this territory slip further into the hands of spammers and admins are losing out because of laziness and blacklists based around unethical purposes.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by James Westfall.
Nothing new here
While this may sound like they're re-hashing old ideas, they're simply continuing ideas they've been working on for decades. All major car makers have been making alternative fuel vehicles since the 70s and the oil crisis then. However, very few were ever successful because they simply couldn't compete with the mileage gasoline-powered cars were getting.
No one's actually stopped making EVs/PHEVs since the 70s, they're mostly destined for things like fleet vehicles and developing countries.
At first, they were free
According to Appendix B of Title 17 US Code of Law (or the DMCA of 1998 as it's commonly known), eBay was -- at first -- pretty much scott free as they were not knowingly letting the auction take place with any intent of letting fallacious transitory information pass through their service. I believe Section 512(a) of Title 17 spells out the limited liability a service provider has (it's either 512(a) or 512(i), I forget which).
However, now that they've "ignored" 8 prior takdedowns, are they now an accessory to trademark infringement? Truthfully, more than likely. Since Hansson is no doubt a legally registered trademark and their products are copyrighted, their 8 dismissals and failure to act C&D now make eBay an accessory. Of course, Hansson's name may be trademarked but their items may not be copyrighted so the takedowns could at that point be null and void since a legal infringment must only occur for media that has been previously copyrighted by the Copyright Office (at least for finite goods).
At worst, eBay's lawyers will end up burying Hansson Inc. over some legalese technicality but at best, they'll be an accessory to trademark fraud/copyright infringment along with severe due professional negligence.
Although, IANAL (I just do this same thing everyday at work).
Ridley sort of has a point
While he's somewhat right in the fact that watching movies on a mobile phone is a bit stupid -- really, who wants to? -- but he's far off the mark as far as computers go. I'd rather watch a movie on my widescreen computer monitor than on my own TV. The quality is so much better and that's how a lot of people watch movies. Not everyone can afford a $2000USD+ TV with a nice sound system but we can afford nice monitors and headphones.
However, Mike, you too have a point. The MPAA gave up on pleasing its customers a long time ago, movie theaters too. With the cost of going to see a movie rising every year to make up for bloated budgets on every "must see" movie (which they all are touted to be, doesn't matter what it is) and everyone being thought of as a pirate, it's financially more feasible to rent the DVD in 3-6 months and watch the same movie for about $5USD. Big studios only want to produce big flashy movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator instead of making movies that are actually watchable like they used to do. They see no money in making intelligent movies or movies with a plot, everyone wants explosions and choreographed kung fu.
If Scott thinks the things that makes making most movies possible (computers, technology in general) are killing the industry, why doesn't he just make more movies worth watching to balance out the technophobia?
Wow...
So many people are selfishly focusing on themselves or America and how rights are being infringed upon. This is insane to read.
The government wants to mandate usage of more efficient bulbs in lights. WOW! Big deal. Most countries in the EU and Britain outlawed, or are in the process of outlawing, incandescent lights because they're seriously inefficient. No one's complaining about the fact that they're saving money and the governments have recouped millions in energy expenditures. In turn, that also means less fossil fuels are burned to light your house up.
Who hates saving money? Apparently America.
Nothing new being said
For the last 4 years, I've had to deal with blacklists of various sizes and scopes and a number of them are slowly becoming havens for false positives. This is becoming increasingly more true -- and visible -- in the realm of spam blacklists.
I've written about this for a few months now, especially about those boneheads at Verizon, and I've been watching this territory slip further into the hands of spammers and admins are losing out because of laziness and blacklists based around unethical purposes.