This all sounds bad and the cops were obviously idiots, but this individual was previously known to the police. It is not inconceivable that the cops in question knew about his record, or had been antagonized by him in the past.
Yes, they were wrong to threaten his life. Yes their language was inappropriate, unprofessional and served to escalate the situation, but Fiorino's public record on the Internet makes him appear to be a shit disturber.
WHO the heck runs a black box recorder every time they leave the house?!?
How stupid do you have to be to accept any sort of legal communication by email? Would you take down a site based on a Post-It Note™ stuck on your door, because they are about as secure as email.
When someone emails our organization with anything containing legaleese, DCMA, Etc, the mail server politely responds "It looks like this email contains material of a legal nature (relating to laws, trademarks, copyrights). Your email has NOT been delivered and is being returned to you because communications of this nature are not appropriate for an insecure medium such as email. If you have a legitimate concern please forward hand-signed documents by courier or registered mail. Thank you. Please be advised that your email WILL NOT be delivered"
If ISPs didn't make it so easy for people to abuse them they would make life much easier for everyone.
I work in the film business. It has been growing every year and continues to make record profits, just as is has since: people got televisions in their homes, got VCR's, got cable, got Video on Demand, and since they got the Internet.
I encourage everyone to go to the Youtube video in the link, and FLAG it as inappropriate. I chose "Inappropriate because it is mass advertising" but feel free to choose your own reason for Youtube to take it down.
It is a shame they have disabled comments for the video, because it could have become an interesting discussion of due process and freedom of speech.
Even though I downloaded the entire album last week on the torrents, I have also ordered the Premium Package from their website. Here's what I am getting:
-CD with 8 Panel Digipak Fold-Out Design
-9-panel Fold-Out Poster Designed by Mike Mills
-2 x 180 Gram White Gatefold Vinyl
-Digital Album Download Card
-2 Extra Bonus Tracks + Remix (Delivered Digitally)
-Beastie Boys T-Shirt (Exclusive To This Pre-Sale)
-Exclusive Iron-on (1 of 3)
-HD Download of the extended version of the
Make Some Noise Video called "Fight For Your
These smart artists got $74.99 from a guy who just wanted to make sure he could buy a non-iTunes download of the new album.
Anonymous Coward: Really? The Beastie Boys are still huge and yes their fans have grown up, along with them. Maybe you will one day.
@davey: That's why smart people READ contracts before signing them. The contract photographers use has been around for years. You pay them for their time, expenses and studio but you DON'T own their copyrights unless you negotiate that separately. I remember asking about it when they took my graduation photos many years ago.
This is a good lesson. If someone, for example, one day wanted to lead a country (God forbid), or be a heartbeat away from leading a country, it would be recommended for that person (or her staff) to be able to read and understand a contract.
This could have been Ms. Palin negotiating the surrender of the USofA to [insert enemy here]. Thank [insert deity here] that she just F'ed up a photo shoot.
@jon day: The difference is that every photograph, work of art, sculpture, etc is automatically copyrighted when it is created, whereas a commercial slogan or symbol is not. Registering the copyrights gives you more options under the law, but you own the copyright as soon as you snap the shutter.
Anyone publishing any photo, especially one that is obviously professionally done, should have the good sense to ask who owns the copyright and secure permission to use it.
It sounds like Palin's office was too stupid to negotiate proper terms with the photographer they hired.
The photographer is completely within his rights to be paid for the use of his work, and we've seen that ugly mug around enough to suspect he should be paid quite handsomely. The image in question is obviously a professionally-shot portrait and any editor should know enough to ask who owns the copyright when publishing it.
The real case for the courts to decide is whether Palin's people should be the ones paying or the end users, who were probably led to believe they were allowed to use the photo.
Techdirt writes a lot of good things about the abuses of copyright and trademark law. This article isn't one of them.
I can assure you that Lindsay Lohan was not on our minds while shooting. We were mostly concerned with which talent would sit still under the lights without screaming and give us something that we could use between crying fits (which is probably a lot like working with Ms. Lohan, come to think of it.)
Thank jebus I am low enough on the call sheet to not have to worry about milkoholics filing lawsuits.
I am as anti-DRM as the next guy, but the encryption and rights management built into D-cinema motion picture distribution is actually a benefit to all involved.
The National Association of Theatre Owners publishes a set of Digital Cinema System Requirements that address equipment interoperability and compatibility. If some theatre in buttfuck nowhere can't unlock their copy of Avatar, they are either not following the standards or they are not legally allowed to screen the movie at that time.
D-cinema distribution allows digitally perfect copies of films to be distributed to theatres on $60 hard drives instead of $2000-$5000 film prints. Each time a D-cinema package is projected, it 'phones home' to ensure that the particular theatre is authorized to project that film at that time. This enables studios to control when films are released in various markets, to accurately bill exhibitors only for the number of actual screenings, and (presumably) to watermark each screening to track piracy. If a copy is lost or stolen they can simply disable that copy.
D-cinema DRM is not at all comparable to the horrendous controls people try to place on consumer media. Digital theatres invest in millions of dollars worth of gear to project digital movies and DRM has been part of it from the beginning. In fact, D-cinema encryption is probably the only reason digital exhibition is allowed by the studios to exist. This is not some poor schmuck who can't watch his iTunes movie because he isn't connected to the Internet. Digital cinema systems are designed from the ground up to be rights managed and net-connected.
For moviegoers, D-cinema allows us to see films with the picture quality and sound the creators intended, to always view a perfect 'print' without scratches and sound pops, and to (maybe someday) benefit from the reduced costs to theatres and distributors.
D-cinema and the DCI Standard are examples of DRM with a purpose and it works very well.
Yup. I suspect The North Face is most concerned with the graphical treatment of South Butt's logo. It is substantially similar, and while very clever in its humor, would be enough to make most lawyers salivate.
Actually, many filesharers are simply upgrading content they already own. Maybe when I ripped my copy of The Cars 4 years ago I didn't see the benefit of lossless compression. Do I dig my CD out of storage and re-rip it or do I simply download a lossless FLAC someone else has made?
And yes, I actually HAVE personally handed a $10 bill to a band whose CD I downloaded.