It would also be nice if they could solve the problem of having to buy the same game twice just because you want to play it on different systems. It probably won't happen though, because it makes them extra money. For that reason, I consider it perfectly acceptable to download a copy if you've already paid for one. Another situation would be if you bought a DVD and the disk became damaged.
Should be called the Right to be Forgotten by the EU, since the ruling only applies to sites there. There's no way it applies to Techdirt. Even Google is only removing links from their European sites, not their global one.
Not singling you out. It's just such a common phrase to see and every time I see it, it's followed by a technical reason why Linux has low desktop market share, when there are more likely business reasons for that. I just don't think the Linux community should beat themselves up for not making an OS that's "good enough" to grab market share from Windows, because it doesn't work that way.
If the work is prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, it is a "work for hire".
If the work was done by a contractor (as in this case), it is only a work for hire if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. Since none of the defendants seems to have raised the "work for hire" argument, I doubt such an agreement was made.
The default would be that Neri retained copyright in the work unless she contracted it away. Her copyright claim wasn't dismissed because she didn't hold the copyright on the sculpture, rather the photos that captured part of the sculpture as well as room and ceiling were deemed fair use. Any future photos would be subject to the same test, even though the homeowner owns the sculpture. The copyright holder and the sculpture owner don't have to be the same. The copyright holder has copyright "rights" and the owner has ownership "rights".
The rest of the claims are hilarious and the judge just rips them apart. I couldn't believe any lawyer would make such poor arguments, then I read that she was litigating pro se. Now she'll have to cough up who knows how much to cover the many defendants' legal fees. That can't be cheap, especially for an artist.
Youtube's DMCA notice handling mechanism is broken. For example, suppose you file a counter-notice and they re-post your video. Often they'll receive a second take-down notice from the same party (which is illegal) and remove the video again (which is improper and unnecessary as safe-harbor was already obtained with the first removal).
Good article except for one thing. There is no long established "de minimis" defense in copyright cases. The Sixth Circuit rejected it in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films and the others have yet to consider it.
Some people actually prefer jobs that keep them on their feet. A car factory is a bad example, but some manual labor jobs can be more satisfying than sitting at a desk pushing buttons; healthier too.
Also, as processes become more automated, better paid artisans get replaced with low paid unskilled laborers. Instead of many people making decent money, you have most people making very little, and a few people at the top getting rich. Sure, you produce the product for lower cost, but your potential customers now have less money to buy it, and the jobs you have now are more boring and tedious.
Considered as a whole, it is much easier to profit selling cheap food. It's not just the cost of the ingredients. The meal lasts longer which drives the restaurant's costs up. At nicer restaurants the employees are better paid in order to achieve a higher level of service. Cheaper restaurants are mostly minimum wage which doesn't help the community as much as whole. They probably don't employ actual chefs which hurts the craft. That also means the menu doesnít change so they can't use local, seasonal ingredients which is worse for health and the environment.
Or is there a bigger issue here: how many of these complaining chefs give a good value for the money?
I don't think that's it. In fact, in terms of profit margin, cheaper chain restaurants are earning much more per the amount they spend on food and staff. How do you think they're able to expand so much? Meanwhile, high-end restaurants usually struggle to stay in business. The ingredients are simply higher quality and more expensive so they're not able to use as high of a markup.
Because the shape of the carrot cake is partially determined by its function as food. The same rule applies to clothing. Copyright restrictions only apply to purely creative works. When a work has functional aspects that can't be separated from its artistic ones, the work is not copyrightable subject matter.
Why this rule. I think it's because for these items, even thought the chef or designer might think them unique, there's only so many ways to arrange food on a plate, it's been done nearly identically at some point in history. Also, as a practical matter, the market for paintings is based on artistic aspects alone, whereas food and clothing still have value outside of their artistic aspects, so the general public doesn't feel it's worth placing copyright restrictions on these items.