Iran, now actively trying to foster an image of a kinder, softer version of the same theocracy that put a contract on Salman Rushdie's head [...]
You're jokin', you're jokin' I can't believe my ears I really must correct this guy I'm drownin' in my tears It's funny, I'm laughing You really are too much And now, with your permission I'm going to do my stuff: Iran have actually revived the fatwa. (Lyrics nicked from 'Oogie Boogie's Song' in 'The Nightmare Before Christmas'.)
Perhaps a massive public phony DMCA take-down party by hundreds/thousands of citizens against the companies that have been abusing the system will wake up law enforcement. Yes, and all those who take part should live outside the US so the penalties for filing false DMCA notices don't apply to them. I live in England and am willing to join in.
[I]t seems abundantly clear that these labels "withdrawing" from ASCAP had nothing to do with competition or market rates. It appears that it had little to do with even withdrawing from ASCAP. Instead, it seems to have been designed from the start to basically screw over Pandora, in what certainly smells an awful lot like collusion, by forcing Pandora to pay exorbitant rates or suddenly face a massive copyright liability because no one would tell them what songs were being "withdrawn" from an existing licensing agreement. Then, ASCAP and the other labels could turn around and use those "agreements" pretending they represented a "market rate" to argue for higher rates at the Copyright Royalty Board, which is supposed to try to come up with a "market rate" for various licenses (even though the high rates were supposed to have a confidentiality agreement tied to them). And then it's ASCAP going around claiming that Pandora is somehow trying to game the system? Hypocrisy by any other name still smells as rank.
Re: Surprised anyone still buys from them anyway...
"Asian people have a hard time making the sound for L, and it's funny to watch them try." Yay for generalisations! As a guy named Benny said in 'Lethal Weapon 4', "Flied lice? It's fried rice, you plick!"
“Should the viewing of a web-page where this implies the temporary reproduction of a work protected under copyright on the screen and in the cache memory of the user’s computer be subject to the authorization of the rightholder?” Technically, it already is. For example, I watched the video of She-Wolf last month with the full authorisation of David Guetta and VEVO.
1. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest? Not as far as can be ascertained. 2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of a particular message? There is no government interest, period. 3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest? Doubtful. How often do members of the government fly in economy or even business class? 4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating messages? At five bucks a minute? Are you fuckin' kidding me?
Which is stupid. I'm an admin of a forum, and on the homepage there are boxes in which to put a user name and password. So do I or the webmaster have an issue if you access the forum without being signed in? Of course not, it's open to public view. Thus the evidence that the mere existence of user name/password boxes do not prove that a network is a 'private intranet'.
The exhaustion principle/first sale doctrine doesn't apply only to copyrights, but also to patents and trademarks, and it's being interfered with by Lululemon's unfair policy. I believe there's also interference with the second-hand market under European law since they have a UK website.
Right at the bottom of the page for each individual app in Google Play is a little clicky which allows you to file an objection about it and potentially get it pulled. The objection I filed is as follows: Company is maximising star ratings in abuse of Google's terms. Bad game, crashes all the time, can't play without money, and now can't rate less than five stars. Feel free to copy/paste.
You know, even though I'm Autistic, the lack of a sarc mark on that AC's comment didn't affect my ability to detect the obvious sarcasm in any way. So what's your excuse for your faulty sarcasm detector?