I disagree. Much as I don't like the MPAA, a win for Bouchat would be a blow to fair use via the precedent. If Bouchat loses then we have a precedent supporting fair use that can then be used in other court cases (assuming the court buys that argument, of course).
Precedent supporting fair use > a loss to the MPAA.
Are they being sued for breach of contract as well?
From the sound of it, people are having problems that they refuse to fix. Sounds to me like they aren't providing the service they are contracted to and therefore the contract should be able to be broken by the other parties.
This a hundred times. What if I said something that managed to seriously piss off someone powerful in China. Or, hell, even some country in Europe decides that I should be criminally charged for something I said. They demand the US extradites me to face trial there. They say they have lots of evidence but shouldn't have to show it. Is the US just going to roll over? No? Then why should they expect other countries to for them?
They should try to identify any high-ranking politicians, lobbyists, etc in the database and then release their data to make the point about what such a bad idea it is. If it's a general hack the politicians will be all, "yeah, that's not good." But by releasing their own data then suddenly it's "Oh crap! We need to reconsider this, it's clearly a bad idea."
It's actually a lot more than 5x speed. I think it's more like 32x speed. I believe each step doubles it.
Also if you've got the Motorola DVR with the gray or silver remote you can program a button (I use the A button) to do a 30 second skip. Makes breezing through commercials a cinch. Skip skip skip skip skip skip oops, too far, jump back 10 seconds and there we go.
If a company does this can the person whose card was charged not dispute the charge as unauthorized and do a charge back? If the company starts getting a lot of these their processing rates increase and they even lose the ability to take credit cards. Obviously that would be a deal-breaker for them.
Alternatively, how about crossing out the part of the part of the contract that talks about disparagement?
Here's some absolutely terrifying thought about fashion design copyright. Think what the movie and video industries have done when someone has their IP in a YouTube video; they freak out completely. How long do you suppose before the first DMCA takedown occurs because someone was wearing some designer outfit or other. Pretty soon you will only be able to upload a YouTube video where the people are either naked or wearing some generic outfit. Now, I don't know about you but while there are certainly some people I wouldn't mind seeing naked the vast majority of them I definitely do NOT want to see that way.
Also, shrinkwrap licenses:
By wearing this article of clothing you are agreeing to a limited, non-transferrable license to display (wear) the enclosed item. This clothing may only be worn by the individual to which it was first licensed and may not be transferred to anywhere else. This license is only valid for a period of two years from the date of purchase. At the expiration of the license you may purchase an extension for $29.99 per year to a maximum of four years from date of purchase. If you elect not to renew the license or have reached the maximum display period then the clothing must be destroyed by burning or returned to us for recycling.
Over $890,000 now. Watching it it seems to be climbing at the rate of about $1000/min. I haven't even kicked in my pledge yet. I wish I could prepay it so I don't have to worry about forgetting about the money coming out of my account in 30 days.
Since I was in the subreddit when this started happening, I can shed a bit of light on it. Prufrock happened to be in the right place at the just the right time with his bit of flash fiction. Redditors ate it up and it got quickly bounced to the front page.
Someone on Reddit had contacts in the industry and brought it to the attention of some folks in a position of power. They saw the idea and the response and flew Prufrock out to LA for a meeting.
They didn't just buy the idea. They set him up with one of their development companies to develop the idea further. They helped him get it registered with WGA and are keeping him on as the head writer while developing his skills to turn it into a proper screenplay. One of the reasons that this is moving along so fast is that they don't have to go through all the focus group group. This idea effectively originated FROM a focus group.
His not being on Reddit is the same as any writer. They simply can't accept outside ideas and pitches. It sucks but anyone who reads TechDirt can see why. Look at all stupid "U stoled my idea so give me all your monehs" lawsuits Mike reports on. If people wouldn't constantly file crap like that we might see more open collaboration on stuff.
As far as the rights go, it has been discussed on Reddit. The license doesn't give Reddit ownership of the idea. It grants them a non-exclusive license to basically use it how they see fit. Reddit could go make their own movie based on what is already out there but Prufrock still owns what he wrote. Reddit has no say or rights to over any derivative content. My guess is that he will start over with the same basic concept but rewrite it with all new characters and details since I doubt any studio would be keen to share the rights to it.