The court notes that Kienitz could have claimed that this lampooning would diminish photographic work for other dignitaries, seeing as he promised to keep their dignity intact when licensing, but those claims were never raised during this case's trip through the court.
Such should not be a consideration during a Fair Use analysis. Copyright law protects the exclusive rights to a particular work, not the potential marketability of other works by the same creator.
Music has become tap water, a utility, where for me it's a sacred thing, so I'm a little offended."
Music has become a litigating weapon, an indictment, where for me it is a recreational pastime, so I am more than a little offended*.
* Which is why I have not purchased a single album or attended a single concert by a major studio act since the recording industry started suing its fans 11 years ago (I do support indy and unsigned acts by direct purchases and attending performances at local venues and music festivals).
The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
Shouldn't that be "where pirated copies of American films have been better preserved", Mr Lucas?
"They are not claiming copyright on the instructions. They are claiming that the instructions violate the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. That clause specifically forbids telling people how to circumvent controls that restrict access to copyrighted material."
Are you sure? What part of the DMCA forbids instruction?
If you read the court's ruling in Berger v New York, it is apparent that eavesdropping upon a telephone call was treated as a "seizure" when addressing 4th Amendment concerns (e.g., "Likewise the statute’s failure to describe with particularity the conversations sought gives the officer a roving commission to ‘seize’ any and all conversations").
There may be later Supreme Court rulings that supersede Berger's ruling (I didn't search for one) but on the face of it, it seems that the deprivation of property is not a requirement within the legal definition of "seizure".
From a purely administrative standpoint, the "life of the author plus" formula needs to go. Copyrights should exist for fixed period from the point of registration (and, yes, copyrights should need be registered).
There needs to be some modicum of sanity in the law such that people can at least know whether or not a work is under copyright.
Even if the effort were to fail in getting the movement's candidates elected, the campaign may still be a success in forcing members of congress to commit to a stance for or against the issue of campaign finance reform.
In response to various “Amazon has no real choice but to remove the pre-order buttons” — on this I don’t agree. ... But I also believe removing the preorder buttons is, as I said in my post, a deliberate “shot across the bow.”
I am not familiar with Amazon bookselling practices but if they were to include a pre-order option, would that not have to specify a set price? If so, how should that price be determined?