Right up to the point that they include in the EULA for the device (yes, it's possible to do that) that they own the copyright on all images output by the device. Really doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.
Unless, of course, you've got your head in the sand.
Yeah, tech is so totally stuck doing the same thing over and over again. That's why I can still buy - at retail - the same B&W screen, non-wifi enabled, no app PDA that I had in 2000. So glad you cleared that up.
You'd be surprised at how true this really is. I used to be a game tester for them back in the PS2 days testing games for platform compliance. We were theoretically supposed to be finding bugs before a game went gold. Reality tho was that we would have to write up any and all game issues which could create a liability for Sony. 80+ Game Testers writing up "bugs" about trademarks appearing in other publishers' titles. We worked for the Legal Dept.
Never made sense to me to suddenly change your target consumer just because your media/format was different. Just because you're a newspaper going online, now your readers need to pay? Doesn't make sense.
Especially considering with online advertising, the advertiser can get a ridiculously clear and accurate picture of their return. 'Stead of the same ol' 50% wasted. Seems to me such targeted & known space is much, much more valuable.
Ahh the irony. Nice use of the USPTO seal. While I'm well aware that it likely doesn't have any sort of IP protection, seeing as it's a government insignia and all, posting it right at the top of a page of semi-coherent rants regarding IP "theft"... classic.
Am I the only one who thinks it's implied that the presence of the seal indicates a USPTO endorsement of the site? Isn't that a no-no in Imaginary Property-land?