Waterford Whispers reminds me of my favorite satirical Irish (non-)news site, The Donegal Dollop . And, lo and behold, as I scanned it just now, I found what might be a response to Denis O'Brien... or maybe just to "Brien O'Denis":
There's real significance to this suit, and to this disclosure. The "Happy Birthday" travesty was held up as a poster child for abusive copyright in college film and video classes as long ago as the mid 70's (sadly, I was there).
And I recall staging an event in the 80's where, in order to honor those born that month, we invited a live pianist (no synchronization rights!) to play the old folk tune "Good Morning Dear Teacher"... and the audience was encouraged to sing whatever popped into their heads.
It's true that since then, a single, celebrated case has transitioned, whack-a-mole style, into a mass of abuses at all levels; but seeing that landmark toppled gives us hope that a more rational approach to IP may one day prevail.
Thanks for the guidance you've provided in this FOIA response. Since you've slightly misspelled my Teutonic surname (your keyboard has no umlaut?), I've marked your traffic summons "Addressee Unknown" and will not attempt to correct the error. Thanks for indicating that it's okay to handle things in this way.
Fallacious reasoning, I say: Because some spammers/fraudsters won't list their phone numbers, then anyone who de-lists is a spammer/fraudster. Including old Aunt Peggy, who chose a nonpublished phone number to avoid calls from spammers/fraudsters. Very clever, Aunt Peggy... seems you're the real villain here, eh?
"SSN's are stolen, faked, and abused all over the place."
According to Glyn's piece, that's what they biometrics are supposed to help with. In the American SSN system, there's no way to tell if the holder is dead or alive, let alone matches an iris scan and ten fingerprints.
As a grandfathered/unlimited customer, I can't wait for that inevitable class action lawsuit, followed, in three to five years, by a check for $3.49 made out to me! And what's the share for those class action law firms? You guessed it... unlimited.
So... if it's possible to copyright a contract, it would be for the purpose of protecting its commercial value. For a book or a song, the purpose would be to sell the book or song for money, and publishing a copy (arguably) diminishes the article's commercial value.
But if, as claimed, the commercial (read: copyrightable) value of a contract document lies in its novel language or methods, then it's the actual use of the contract in commerce that's being protected. So, publishing the language wouldn't infringe, since there's no inherent value in seeing/hearing it, as there is with a book or song; but copying the language and using it in a contract of your own would diminish the contract's value, failing to compensate its author.
In other words, the only infringement would be ripping the language/ideas/methods, and using them in a new contract. No infringement for simply showing off the language. In my opinion.
If we agree to use the printer manufacturer's materials, can we use it to print DRM-free 3D Keurig coffee pods? Or maybe my coffee maker can learn to print gun parts using generic 3D printing media. One big, happy family, DRM'ed to the gills!
Well, to ratchet-down the hyperbole just a bit, a "swipe-o-matic" is a reference to a down-and-dirty test commercial intended for communication within the creative team only. It's a found object, moving image version of the longstanding "animatic", in which a camera performs zooms and pans on static images and sketches to suggest just what the final product might look like once it's shot. Roughly the equivalent of cutting out pictures of broccoli from Good Housekeeping magazine to create your fourth grade collage on green vegetables.
But I get the "yikes" comment... even for a throwaway, the irony of a Google swipe isn't lost on Kalouria.