It is disgusting that a song that has questionable copyright, lyrics from one, melody from another; and was published in a children's songbook, long ago, is now the subject of a squabble for millions of dollars.
More money than was probably conceivable to whoever first wrote either the lyrics or melody.
Moreover, the original authors may not have been particularly greedy.
But look what Copyright does. Promoting the useful arts and sciences.
If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide.
An agreement so secret cannot possibly be in the public interest. Or the national interest. Or even the interest of most businesses. (Unless you're one of the businesses or privileged who are more equal than others.)
Re: Re: Publicity rights used to stifle legitimate activities?
The mentally contaminated one is the same argument I remember from SCO vs IBM. (Which is still ongoing, in some sense of the word. It is worth checking up on the progress of the SCO vs IBM case about every one quarter of a galactic turn.)
Re: Re: Re: Hey Time Warner / Hulu, here's a free clue!
While one might argue that they would go back to horse and buggy if they offer a product that is worth the price, there is more to it than just the price.
The fact is the automobile is vastly superior to the horse and buggy in many ways. Even if the horse and buggy were vastly cheaper (eg, worth the price), it would not appeal to me. And similarly, neither would cable TV.
My break with cable TV is permanent. Just like my 'break' with Microsoft products. If it could change to become what I want, then ok, but there's no way that can ever happen.
In order for me to go back to Cable TV, it would have to have morphed into something entirely different which is equal to or better than the internet services I use now.
Maybe the owners of GenerationB.otf are NOT trying to create an improper monopoly on the look of the output of their GenerationB.otf font, with its embedded computer instructions that decide how to adjust the font vectors to fit different resolutions of pixels.
But maybe they ARE trying to protect their GenerationB.otf file which Hasbro has used, and distributed, without a license.
Hasbro could expend the significant resources to develop their own vector type face font that looks the same. But they didn't. Or they could have licensed the one they used, but they didn't.
(Elsewhere in this thread, it is discussed that there is another look-alike font that was independently developed.)