ChurchHatesTucker 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3503)

• On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 08:59am

  Re: Obvious

  "You "dick-joke-geniuses" understand that a "cease and desist order" is not asking for any money? right? "
  
  You understand that they don't own a trademark on Nexus, right?

• On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 08:26am

  Re:

  "Google is just copying Apple once again with this trademark dispute over their phone's name. They can't do anything original."
  
  *snort*

• On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 08:16pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission

  Regardless, the same entity is answering your request.

• On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 06:15pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: inline linking as copyright infringement

  "Hmm. Though there may be exceptions, in every area of the law that I'm familiar with the rule is exactly the opposite: if someone wants to use another's property the property owner must explicitly give consent [oral or written]."
  
  You do a lot of work for billboard companies?

• On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 05:41pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission

  "Nope, hotlinking is including the image in the page. linking is providing a link TO the image, which they can follow if they wish."
  
  It's a matter of specificity, but they both function effectively the same. I.e., I don't serve (copy) the image in either case.

• On the post: UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 04:29pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Oh, I thought that was "It Will Be."

• On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 03:53pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission

  "If you want to guide people to an image, you would just link to it."
  
  Yes. That's how hotlinking works. I point you (by way of your computer) at the image.

• On the post: UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 03:45pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  VX, it is never a question of stopping piracy as an absolute. It's the idea of making your product less desirable, less easy, and less accessible.
  
  FTFY

• On the post: A Case That Has It All: Kim Kardashian, Twitter, Libel, Cookie Diets… And The New FTC Sponsorship Rules

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 03:19pm

  Re: Re: Re: Well hey

  Oops. I'm an idiot. I was conflating her with Kim Kommando.
  
  Yeah, I've no idea who this KK is.

• On the post: Billboard Model Sues Filmmakers, Because Her Billboard Appears For 12 Seconds In The Movie

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 03:14pm

  Re: Other considerations

  "One example is that studios often solicit money for use of brands in films. If the films aren't scrutinized for inadvertent use of unauthorized brands, beyond potential trademark and copyright issues, it would diminish the market for selling brand appearances in films. "
  
  You might as well say that since I don't tell people to buy Sony, Apple can sue me for telling people they should get an iPhone.
  
  Also, Angelyne is an attention-seeking skank.

• On the post: UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 01:16pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Rising tide ...

  Meh, one or two decades, then the major city owners cash out.
  
  Frankly I thoughtthe NFL owners had a broader vision tHan that.

• On the post: A Case That Has It All: Kim Kardashian, Twitter, Libel, Cookie Diets… And The New FTC Sponsorship Rules

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 01:13pm

  Re: Re: Well hey

  That's not how I came across her, but you may be correct.

• On the post: A Case That Has It All: Kim Kardashian, Twitter, Libel, Cookie Diets… And The New FTC Sponsorship Rules

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 11:46am

  Well hey

  I'm not a KK fan (she's one of those "I know PCs so I know computers" people) but she's not "famous for being famous," she's (sorta) famous for having a radio show (and, I imagine, web presence, and obviously Twitter.)
  
  That said, I'm still unsure what the complaint is here.
  
  As for the cash-for-tweets, yeah, it's a thing. Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day both mentioned it this past week (they're not doing it.)

• On the post: UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 11:12am

  Re: Re: Rising tide ...

  "...when that goes away, it's going to absolutely KILL free agency, parity, and possibly the NFL as the nation's most popular sport."
  
  But that will take decades. Meanwhile, the owners get paid.

• On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 10:30am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  "The owner of the copyright in the photograph owns the exclusive right to display the photograph."
  
  Which they have done, otherwise hotlinking wouldn't work.
  
  It's like suing someone for directing people to your exhibit.

• On the post: UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 10:09am

  I give it a week

  Stupid Exec is Stupid

• On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 10:03am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  "See comment #13."
  
  WTF is comment #13?

• On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2010 @ 08:55am

  Re: Re: Re:

  " An infringement does not require, therefore, that a copy be made."
  
  Of course it does. They call it copyright for a reason.

• On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 05 Jan, 2010 @ 09:00pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Touchè, sir.

• On the post: Site Suspends Comments For 'Cooling Off Period'

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 05 Jan, 2010 @ 08:55pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  Stop being sensible. It's messing up my day.

Next >>