The moment someone does make a complaint stating they were offended by the poster is the moment I jump in my car, find the church nearest this guy's house, and make a complaint against something I find there...
Well, he was probably /asked/ to testify before Leaveson... and to be honest I don't actually agree with you on the claim that he's primarily be remembered as "the guy who sued the News of the World and won", I really do believe that that's to that paper most people believe he was into Nazi sex games.
Look, as I said, I don't actually disagree with anything you're actually saying
He's wrong, what he's doing can't work, but basically (and I'm slipping into his narrative here) he's an old guy that doesn't really understand how the internet works, and he's been horribly entrapped by a tabloid and he's trying to repair the damage and flailing around somewhat in the process...
He's only, what, 10 years out of date with his methodology?
I think it's slightly disingenuous to highlight where he's failed to win legal action in his ongoing 'privacy battle', but not to point out that Mosley did sue News of the World and won, the damages for which were the highest in recent legal history for a privacy action, plus the claim that it was 'Nazi themed' was proven to be false.
I don't disagree with anything you say regarding the pointlessness of his ongoing legal battle, but to downplay the cornerstone of /his/ justification seems a little awry.
I'm trying to find my source to cite (I'm failing) but Radiohead (who I think we can all agree are relativity enlightened in this area) said in an interview that leaks really were bad, even if you give the album away for free, because they prevent you from creating an event that you can monetise.
I have to agree. Once it's out there there's no point in trying to control it, but using secrecy to allow you to craft a release event must make sense as a business model.
Okay this is a weird POV I admit, and I'm sure there is a good argument that I'm being incredibly jingoistic, but as a State the UK is in economic competition with other States, so should government generated IP etc. be released in such a way that only the stakeholders/citizens of that State can exploit it for free?
Whenever there is talk of releasing US research as public domain 'so that those that ultimately paid for it can exploit it', I always sneakily think 'But we in the UK who didn't pay for it could exploit it too...'
Just interested if anyone else has ever thought this...
There's an interesting blindness on your side too.
Now, I'm over in Blighty and know nothing of baseball, but those comments are about the /quality/ of the players being let in, not the proportion, which is all those stats address.
People seem to be saying 'the standards are lower!', and to hold up stats that simply say 'The proportion is lower!', and claim that these commentators are blind to the facts, seems like a blindness of sorts on your side.
When Apple TV first came out several years ago I wanted something of the like & and my research showed that by far the best option (not cheapest, literally technologically best for my needs) was to buy a 2nd hand 1st gen X-Box & remote, jailbreak it & stick XBMC on it. This also happned to be the cheapest.
Its still in occasional use, and if it worked in HD, it would still be my primary media player.
It's never played a pirated game. Hell, it's never played a single game since I've used it, except the copy of Splinter Cell I needed for the buffer overrun jailbreak.
If Jedi was a word that Lucas had appropriated for his space samurai, then other uses would be pretty fair game. However a quick Wikipedia check seem to say that he cooked up the word himself (or at least dragged it up for very deep obscurity, possibly form another language) so I think that it's fair to say that there is some genuine cause to believe that there could be confusion.
Certainly I'd assume that a videogames company called Jedi Mind was a spinoff of Lucas Arts or something...
I can't help but smile at this one. In the last census in the UK, so many people entered 'Jedi Knight' as their religion, it had to become a recognised faith!
The reason that it's not silly is because its about a content creator being ripped off, not about fair use or derivative work.
If you agree that you split the royalties 50/50 as equal co-creators, then don't get paid what was greed, you should have the right to some kind of legal recourse.
If the other party change the copyright notice when the work is reprinted and claim that the three year statute of limitations had expired when you don't spot the change in the reprints within three years, you can probably accuse the other party of unfair dealing.
I think it's fair to say that one of the three characters at stake was very derivative of 'Spawnworld'. However the other two could easily be guests from another comic. But frankly that's all secondary to simple creator's rights to get paid what you agree you were gonna pay him.