You heard it here first, guys. DropBox is gonna get the drop! Think about it, a cloud storage service that allows its users to store any type of file and to share them. The fact that they charge people to use Pack-Rat only confirms the service is 'an illegal tool that enables widespread copyright infringement' because the fact that Megaupload charged its users was enough to get it shut down for commercial infringement. Check out the facts on Wikipedia for confirmation of my claims.
You could, until this ruling, copyright a software program. Actually, you still can. It's just that before this ruling, companies were trying to copyright a program's functionality, and now they've been smacked down and told they can only copyright its code. A far better situation than in the US, where software patents do protect the way a program works.
I hope you are doing well, I think. I am pretending to be devastated by the loss of Nelson Mandela because it seems like the canny thing to do at the moment, and I hope you join with President Obama in remembering his legacy. He ranks with Mohandes Ghandi, Dr. King and President Kennedy in the struggle for human rights over the past 50 years, whereas I don't even rank with what passed from his bowels. There are larger issues than the ability to steal from people by threatening to expose their porn habits in a public setting... You seem like a much nicer guy than I am. Thanks. FTFY, Paul Duffy.
If this was a 501c3, great, no controversy, awesome...but trying to pull a fast one and say a form of advertising for a target market using a highly-recognizable song (that you can't legally license because of the band's own wishes) isn't going to pass test element #1. Test element #1 has already been passed. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., dipshit.
In the EU there is some debate as to whether linking a work amounts to communicating that work to the public. Which is ridiculous. Even if linking did realistically constitute 'communication to the public' (which it doesn't), that doesn't stop the original author pulling or moving their work, after which the link dies and I can't be found guilty of a damn thing.
The article talks about Shaun Shane (or whoever he may be) filing false DMCA claims that include the phrase, "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate, and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." That's where this prick's risk of being found guilty of perjury comes from, the fact that he's lying on what is, to all intents and purposes, a legal document and knows it.
Do you know how to make a Stradivarius violin? Neither does anyone else. Why? There was no protection for creations in his day so he like everyone else protected their creations by keeping them secret. Yes, I'm absolutely sure that the lack of access to the exact materials Stradivarius used has absolutely bugger all to do with it, given the fact that violins have been made pretty much the same way for centuries. *rolls eyes* Did you know that in order to stop his works from being copied, Shakespeare went so far as to give his actors only their lines for the play in which they were appearing? Of course, I wouldn't blame you if you don't believe me, given the wide availability of copies of 'Hamlet', 'Romeo and Juliet', et al.
The first [patent] is, essentially, for URL shortening. Which is why software patents should be scrapped. Under that system, as I understand it, having the same end result will get you into trouble. For example: my use of HTML coding to create this link back to Techdirt's homepage is technically an infringement of the URL shortening patent, simply because combining the link into the text has the effect of shortening it; i.e., it's the same end result.
I am flabbergasted that at your age you seem not to have learned that trash talk, as in a junior high school locker room, is not calculated to create a positive impression of all you have to offer. Whereas I am flabbergasted that at your age you seem not to have learned that trash talk, as in a junior high school locker room, is based on subjective opinion, not objective fact. I repeat; you are full of shit and unwilling that you are wrong on anything.
Researchers have shown that by re-inserting an intact copy of the [SIGLK2] gene into tomatoes, they could increase the amount of glucose and fructose by up to 40%, while still retaining the uniform color ripening trait. Too bad they weren't actually able to taste them (federal regulations prohibit sampling experimental crops). Okay, so why not announce the research complete so that these fantastically delicious tomatoes can be sold and we can all try them? Oh, wait. No, bad idea. I just received a 'friendly' letter from Monsanto, warning me of the consequences of their IP being infringed as a result of anyone doing that.
Mike Gerrard said: In the UK there don't seem to be any equivalent cases, and the copyright law on the spoken word is a little more hazy. Actually, UK copyright law is pretty clear on the fact that copyright exists from the moment something is fixed into tangible form and if you don't record it in some way, you can't then claim copyright on it. Since you did the former and Bryson failed to do the latter, you are 100% in the right on this. Basically, if it's an unfixed work, it's not copyrighted. If the work is fixed, then the one who is responsible for the fixation is the copyright owner, no one else. That's why record companies are more often copyright owners than the artists who perform the music. I can tell you this as an Autistic auto-didact cognoscente of UK copyright law.