MIT was running a network that, as you point out, was open to the public, even guests. In the real world, if you run a business that is open to the general public, but one specific person causes trouble and management tells them to leave because they aren't welcome, and then they come back, no one would find it unreasonable to call the police and have them arrested for trespassing.
MIT didn't "ask a person to leave", they blocked his MAC address. A MAC address doesn't equal a person any more so than an IP address does. Aaron simply spoofed his MAC address, like any computer literate person would do when a device isn't connecting to a network.
Would you see it differently if Aaron had purchased a dozen laptops and used those instead of spoofing his MAC address? To me they are one and the same.
The physical trespassing charge for entering the wiring closet was the only legit charge against Aaron, if you ask me.
Did the DOJ actually call this a "Mega Conspiracy" or did Dotcom coin that?
The DOJ started calling them that in the original indictment. They have been trying to negatively influence potential jurors from the get go. Just another reason to think their case isn't as strong as they would like everyone to believe, if you ask me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm with Perry's team on this
This obsessions with the 'costume' aspect is a distraction, not the reason I see a reasonable claim of IP.
Ok. That's fine. What I am arguing is that the costume aspect is tantamount it being a reasonable copyright claim in the first place. It's not an obsession at all, it's the gist of my argument.
The original cease & desist says "intellectual property depicted or embodied in connection with the shark images and costumes portrayed and used in Katy Perry's Super Bowl 2015 half-time performance". Images, not just costumes. And as a reflection of underlying IP, not necessarily the IP itself.
Personally I never saw any "images" of sharks aside from the dancer's costumes, but it's possible I missed them when I watched it live. But, if it turns out that the costumes are the only portrayal of sharks at the time it was broadcast (ie: fixed to tangible medium) and the costumes aren't copyrightable, no infringement occurred.
And how did the replica-figurine-seller even know what Left Shark looked like? He did not have direct access to any costumes. He didn't implement the generic idea of "man-wearable shark costume". He didn't market it as "figurine of man in shark costume".
He worked from a fixed, tangible medium – an entertainment telecast concert performance – which is undoubtedly both copyrightable and copyrighted. He made a version that's instantly recognizable as one of the Perry Concert Sharks.
I don't disagree that the figurine was probably copied from the broadcast, since it's doubtful that the 3d designer actually attended the Superbowl. But if the costumes are not protected by copyright that really doesn't matter because no infringement occurred in the first place.
Additionally, in the process of designing the show, surely a series of fixed-medium scripts and concept drawings existed first, and guided the creation of the costumes and the performance choices of the actors/dancers.
To be honest, I'm not sure how that actually helps. How can copyright infringement occur on something that was never seen be the infringer? The supposed infringement occurred from the live broadcast, not the concept drawings or production notes or whatever.
Can't characters like Spider-Man or Barney-the-Dinosaur be protected even though they often instantiate as people-in-costumes?
This relates to what I was trying to convey further up thread. The characters you mention were protected by copyright prior to costumes of the characters being made.
Neither of those examples were given a copyright based only on the costume design, which is what you seem to be advocating for Left Shark. They were given copyright protection because their likenesses were affixed to a tangible medium other than the costume itself.
Yeah, I agree that the contracts involved with a Superbowl Halftime show probably killed more than a few trees.
That fact makes Sprigman's request to show ownership even more compelling, though.
As for the copyrightablility of the costume, that's a pretty grey area legally and courts have gone either way on it, so who knows.
The one thing that I wonder about though, is that previous cases seemed to involve costumes of things that were already under copyright, like characters from a movie or a book that were previously affixed to a tangible medium. If this a new costume design for a live show, is it copyrightable?
Your efforts to explain the law here are admirable, but it's a waste of time.
No, not really. I've had plenty of discussions with AJ/antidirt where I've learned quite a bit. Not a waste of time at all.
There is a POV here that must be maintained and no amount of logic or reasoned application of the law will make it through the filter.
Now you are just being rude. Well, thought out arguments are always welcome here, even if it opposes the majority view.
Hey, it gets them their clicks, but that dripping sound they don't want to hear about is the loss of credibility. Ah well.
Not even sure what that means. You realize that for the most part the Techdirt blog is a loss-leader for the rest of Mike's business, don't' you. From what I've gleaned over the years, the ads here barely pay for all the bandwidth used. Page clicks are not what Techdirt coverts and Techdirt's reputation is worth more then pageviews could ever provide.
There's other cases that cut this same way, and there’s cases that cut the other way. But my point is that it’s not as simple as costume = not copyrightable, as Mike claimed.
First off, I have to say that your attack on Mike is a bit unjustified. All Mike said was "Yes, there is doubt concerning this, because in most cases costumes are not copyrightable." He never said it was simple or resolved, you did.
Secondly, I have to agree that certain design features of costumes (which are not utilitarian) can be copyrightable.
Also, courts have stated that if the whole purpose of the costume is to portray a protected character then they are not "useful articles":
What should really be determined is if Left Shark was a work-for-hire and if it was, Perry very well could own the rights.
Based on her own statements about how little artistic control she had concerning the halftime show, I'm thinking that Perry's whole performance was a work-for-hire and the rights (if any) would belong to the NFL.