Re: Re: Re: Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
Under its ToS, the NY Times states that users hand over the copyright of anything they post to the paper and waive their moral rights (which exist in written works in Europe). What part of that isn't stealing copyrights when no consideration is offered in return? You're possibly thinking of unauthorized duplication of items under copyright protection. No, I think of that when I hear/read the term 'copyright infringement'.
"BMI, whose full name is Broadcast Music Inc., collected $1.013 billion for the 12 months that ended in June, up almost 4 percent from the year before." Of this amount, slightly less than $15 million will be distributed amongst the most famous record companies that BMI represents. It is unknown how much of that $15 million will reach the artists and bands that have earned it and how much will get swallowed up by creative accounting. Just sayin'. ;(
(-_Q) 'Has non-exclusive licence' =/= 'other party is relying on exclusive licence'. The same applies when using the fact of a non-exclusive licence as an affirmative defence against a trolling copyright infringement lawsuit.
Yes, it is. If Loadus had granted an exclusive licence to Trunk, then he would no longer be able to provide non-exclusive licences to anyone else on the work in question and would have not only had to delete the sentences that provide the licence, he'd have had to pull the work off of DeviantArt as well.
(-_Q) The point I suggested 2600 should make is that the licence is non-exclusive. You know, not exclusive? But why would 2600 say that Trunk has any kind of license at all? They don't know that. Right, the phrase Free for non-commercial/commercial use that Loadus posted under his work is absolutely no clue as to another party's licence status when using it at all. (-_Q)(-_Q)
People generally don't stand in the middle of the road, wearing large white gauntlets and waving white batons in a series of pre-set signals. Given that description, I don't think it's too hard to teach a self-driving vehicle the difference between ordinary pedestrians and traffic cops.
You're the person who suggested 2600 should argue that Trunk Archive has a non-exclusive license. Actually, no I didn't. I suggested that 2600 should point to the wording on the original work and use it to state that both parties (not just Trunk) have a non-exclusive licence which the plaintiff is abusing. Additionally, it was an AC who made the comment to which I replied, not Mike Masnick. Again, read carefully. The ability to do so is just very basic.
I have a publicity right in this comment and I don't want Techdirt to publish it. If they try, then I want an injunction to prevent the publication of this comment. How's that for an equally ridiculous request (although in this case, I am technically the publisher)?
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “Shoot your mouth off all you want. Eventually we are going to kill you,” the senior counter-terrorism official said. No, I'm not seeing the contradiction. /s
Actually if you read the decision on this the judge has allowed the case to continue on right of publicity of the owner, so this may very well cost Sony in the end. Doubtful. Any sensible judge will rule that Virag is basically enjoying free product placement and thus rule against them. [...] "ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS" (caps from the document). A document which isn't linked to from either this article or the Gamasutra one, and which would probably be a pain in the arse to read on a mobile phone (PDF) if it was. Your point?
My point that it's the movie studios that get paid sponsorship fees for product placement rather than having to pay licencing fees to include the logos still stands, but nice attempt at redirection. I pity the fool...
Meaning that movie studios could use this as a signal that they don't have to pay companies for product placement. You're obviously confused. This case is about including trademarks for purposes of veracity, whereas product placement is a form of sponsorship wherein PepsiCo pays a movie studio to have characters drinking nothing but Mountain Dew (for example). Basically, this case sets the precedent that a movie studio or games developer/publisher don't have to clear the appearance of logos if they appear the same way in real life, it says nothing about the right of movie studios to turn down sponsorship fees for product placement, which they've always had.