Plus all the other sources of EM radiation we come into contact with in our day to day lives--like everything that uses or transmits electricity and the radio waves from aircraft, air traffic control stations, weather stations, TV and radio stations, and satellites. Also, that giant ball of fusing hydrogen that our planet orbits around has been found to emit EM radiation like all the freaking time.
Um...No. Microsoft has added quite a few under the hood security enhancements since XP. Examples: Address Space Layout Randomization--Prior to Vista, many (all?) of Window's processes ran in the same memory space on every computer, that makes it very easy for a malicious program to hook into Window's core functions. Improved Data Execution Prevention, especially in 64bit versions--prevents buffer overflow errors from executing code. Application isolation--A low level app (non administrator) cannot hook into a higher level app or function or make any changes to the system or other apps (yes those annoying UAC prompts are there for a reason).
Not just from the copyright holders, since they claim they received less than 150k from the tariffs which is what should have been payed to the rights holders, but have 850k in debts which they accrued for doing absolutely nothing.
While Brack won't say who sent the cease and desist, there's a pretty short list of whom it might be.
Even shorter, since the article states that he reversed his three copies of the book--and not the movie--I would hazard to guess that it was the publisher or the author. I'm leaning towards the author.
This is actually a case where profits are being made from the use of the beastie boys content.
You mean just like when the Beastie Boys made profits from using the content of others.
I am normally completely against most copyright laws but when someone is benefiting financially from someone eases work i just dont see how it can be declared fair use.
You mean like the Beastie Boys benefiting financially from someone else's work. I'm guessing the part of copyright you're aganst is fair use?
That goes totally against the principles of copyright law as I want it to be...
How your wants are relevant to this, or to what copyright law actually is?
...where those benefiting financially from using someones content should be paying the original creator.
I guess in your world the Beastie Boys should be paying some original creators some money.
And should be forced to pay a licence for using it if they want to sell them a licence.
Umm...last I checked, fair use doesn't require any payments or licenses (wouldn't be fair use if it did).
I am now wondering if this case was not started just for the attention the case and therefore the advert would receive, It has received a lot of from the articles that have been written about it.
Probably not. If any legal advice was sought on the song being used, most lawyers would probably say it's fair use parody. Using the possibility of getting your ass sued off in exchange for free publicity is not a very good marketing strategy.