Perhaps the opportunity to slip this through under cover of darkness has passed...
"Abort! Abort! START THE SHREDDER!"
Saying "they are from the movie" doesn't negate the fact that those specific images are part of the public domain movie poster.
But since you're a goddamn pirate, you wouldn't know that.
Let's take "My Sweet Lord" for example. Do you know that there are two different components to that song that can be copyrighted?
No, of course you don't.
Any chance you could apply case law from copyright and trademark cases, as well as from civil forfeiture cases, to your analysis?
Whould it matter if the specific image never appeared in the film?
I stand corrected.
However, I can't get past the idea that copyright has the power to capture a public domain work for the purposes of derivative works.
Logically, it would be reasonable to consider if the public domain work and the copyrighted work had the same creator. I can also see how the creative entity should not have an unreasonable burden in copyrighting every single instance of the expression. However, it doesn?t seem as though that was a factor here.
Under a system in which the creator has the responsibility to register, it seems as though they should not have a claim to works left in the public domain or works derived from them.
That?s an interesting argument. However, you?re still arguing that you can take something that exists in the public domain, and copyright it. I don?t see how that does anything but open the public domain up to poachers. One minute, all that exists are the public domain images in the poster. The next minute, a copyrighted movie is released. Now the public domain images can?t be used to derive new works?
Incidentally, you?ve got the whole derivative thing backwards. Creating a derivative work doesn?t make it less OK to copy public domain works.
Mike, you really must learn to write with less FUD. Reading the comments here it is easy to see that you are confusing your children.
It might not be his definition of "always" that's flawed. Perhaps we need to agree on a definition for "to be."
Could you point me at your dictionary?
What's a dictionary? I can't find that word anywhere in my wordsbook. You need to learn how to Smurf english.
The 84,000 domains registered under mooo were not controlled by mooo. Statements to the contrary are untrue. Congratulations. If you had any credibility before, I think it's just about evaporated.
mooo.com had total control over the subdomains. They could take them down at any time.
I understand that mooo.com isn't hosting the material. They're hosting the server that points people to the material. That role, I believe, gives them some responsibility for the sites they point to.
Guys, I think Joe believes that Mooo.com is hosting these sites. If that's true, I may forgive him for being so obstinate.
Joe,
Mooo.com does not necessarily host the offending sites. I hope that helps.
Joe,
You point out that others seem to insist on debating the law as they would like it to be, instead of as it actually is. It?s your turn, Joe.
The owners of the .com TLD have ?set up a domain name that allows any number of subdomain names to be created under it and??they??are never responsible for anything that happens on those subdomains.? It works like that.
Mooo.com is acting as a registrar. They don?t have to host the subdomains? sites to do this. They have as much control over a.moo.com as Verisign has over moo.com. They?re the registrar.
You do have considerable research facility. I beg you, use it. You?re in a safe place, Joe. We?re here to help.
Tool- ...
2.
a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function c : a means to an end
A thing is a tool in as much as it is useful in facilitating an activity. (i.e. Religion is a tool of the oppressor.)
What exactly would be your point, anyway? If it's a tool, taking it away poses a hardship. If it's not a tool, what is it that it should be so important? Where are you going with this?
Guys?Guys!
Yes, Joe can be harsh. And Obstinate. And intransigent. And smug. And some of the things he?s said have caused me to fall asleep crying into my pillow. And I?m glad that Mike keeps track of these things so we can better hold people accountable for their arguments and past behaviors. But this is a new day and it?s after 9a.m. MST and Joe has not attacked anyone yet. That?s a good start.
You may say I?m a dreamer. But I?m not. So?Although I?m glad that Mike doesn?t forget, I hope we can all forgive. For now. For science.
Now, let?s attack his worthless perspective and ideas!!!
Oh, come on! There are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack this AC. This is just lazy.
It is conceivable that the facts support seizing the entire domain name. He's perfectly within the bounds of logic to say that, since we know none of the salient facts.
Your "understanding" is wrong (and purposely so it seems since it has been explained to you over and over).
Re: Denial by the Minister
...because I signed it yesterday."