I'd imagine that the menu that has numbers that are not zero next to the names of the drinks would be used by a prosecution as proof that this is being done in commerce. How long does a grand opening typically last?
There's an update on the Ars Technica article, where they note that Laurelli, after clicking on the link that Google gave him but before he downloaded the several gigabytes worth of content, went to the home page of the directory he was on and was presented with a user name and password login box. This was used by the prosecution as indicative of his knowledge that he was on an intranet that he had no business being on and therefore he was guilty of the cyber equivalent of trespassing.
...you say you're a university teacher for 20 years and have never had to copy copyrighted material?
How do you do your job then? I presume you do research. That would entail copying earlier works, done by other people, that is almost certainly copyrighted (at least, work that hasn't been done by scientists working on US government funds, which (ought to) go to the public domain), quoting hypotheses and theories about whatever field you're in and then presenting your own findings in either support of or as a rebuttal to them.
This is the most important sentence in the article and undermines what you're trying to say
"by more or less admitting that they're only doing this as a cover to be able to use Starbucks' name, rather than as legitimate social commentary, they're basically giving up their fair use defense." Unlike the GoldieBlox/Beastie Boys case, here they are flat out admitting that the only reason they are using the adjective 'dumb' is so they can attract customers with the Starbucks logo. Goldieblox didn't do that. Rather than just use the one word, they used someone else's music and then changed the meaning of the music entirely.
You could simply have your translation as a text file, go to an internet cafe, open up Gmail, create a new Gmail account with bogus information and use that for Youtube. If Google is ever asked to cough up the personal details of that account, then they can only say "Well, the account was made by "Mr. Fake Name" and the IP address corresponds to this net cafe. So anyone could have made it".
Ah! An excellent specimen. Come, gather round everyone, you can never tell when one of these fascinating creatures will pop up. The scientific term for this creature is selective-us reading-itus. This species demonstrates intense anger and social maladjustment. How you can tell them apart from other species is their ability to read a document, then complain that the author never mentioned something, when in fact they did.
Aaaah, I laugh whenever I see such curious animals. I can never quite figure out how they're able to do it.
You and I think very alike, as I had the same thought reading through this. I was wondering what could be their motivation to keep filing these lawsuits when they fail time after time after, and judgements from earlier failures are used against them in more recent cases.
Well no you can't. Snowden is living in Russia and the US does not have an extradition treaty with Russia. Sure, the US could send in some sort of squad to kidnap him or fly a drone over to assassinate him but that would violate all sorts of international laws. Violating the law to punish an alleged lawbreaker is...well...kinda missing the point, don't you think?
A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a horrible and oppressive character who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. A tyrant usually controls almost everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
Let's see...does Snowden tick any of those boxes? No. At absolute worst, he may (may!) have broken a law, but that would make him a criminal. If you still want to label him a tyrant then, that would mean labelling all criminals as tyrants also.
Re: Re: Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
"Boy you're not very creative, are you? Is your only definition of giving back letting you make verbatim copies of Mickey Mouse? "
Not the only definition but one that everyone should be able to enjoy. If I wanted to, I could print out right now 5,000 copies of the complete works of Shakespeare and sell them. No editing or changing, just the direct text from his plays. I would have no fear of being sued. Why is it that I can't do the same with Steamboat Willie or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?