I would find it really amusing if the articles in question were publicly funded works and should have been in the public domain anyway.
I think the EU Commission has seen the writing on the wall and are pushing it off to the Court of Justice to weigh in on it so that when it finally does go down in a flaming wreck they can say "We were trying to protect you! See! We sent it to the EU Court of Justice!"
Worse. They will just tell the judge how "Deeply ashamed they are." How they express "The utmost remorse for their actions." and that "They will take this opportunity to reflect on their actions and learn from their mistake."
Then, unless one of them has a previous record of misconduct the judge will give them a slap on the wrist sentence and tell them not to do it again. Which will of course be ignored, only this time they will be more secretive about it.
None.
And people will continue to ignore Copyright laws because they had no say in their making and always seem to go one way with little to no compromise.
You can't (legally) say someone is guilty without proof.
And how much is Microsoft making off of the so called patents on Android?
What I want to know is did the Judge allow Google to file their Friend of the Court thing?
Google basically says
If the mp3 is not a physical good, then it would not fall under the phonocopy clause. If it is a physical good then it falls under First Sale.
We have a room for them here where I work. We would be pleased to take them because they are rich and have really good insurance plans. Would be a nice contrast to the usual poor and indignant client base we usually have.
Hrm.. maybe because it is?
a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing
b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses
c : virtue 3
d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2
a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate
b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : ownership
c : something to which a person or business has a legal title
d : one (as a performer) who is under contract and whose work is especially valuable
e : a book or script purchased for publication or production
3
: an article or object used in a play or motion picture except painted scenery and costumes
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property
I see what you did there..
Anyone who cannot grasp that Congress is a "wild west" needs to be checked for a pulse.
Simply put, it's all there: lawlessness, thievery, business models based on ripping other people off, circumvention of laws, jurisdictional plays, and so on.
Silly troll, no movie that cost 100M to make ever turned a profit! Haven't you seen their accounting sheets?
/s *grin*
Try again. The MU take down happened after the petition reached its 25k sigs.
Again, this isn't the major studios (Sony, BMI, et al), this is two individuals bringing forth suit.
This isn't the major studios (BMI, Sony etc) doing this, this is the individuals who wrote and composed the song doing this on their own behalf (they managed to keep the copyright on their stuff, I suspect many lawyers lost their heads the day that contract was signed..)
Does Newt have videos on his webpage that include the song, either for streaming or as a short demo clip to entice a purchase of a DVD? If so then that could very well run afoul of both performance and streaming rights..
My my.. copyright sure is complex.
The data is in fact evidence. However if they go forth and seize the HDs themselves they will have seized plenty of perfectly legal data that they absolutely no legal right to and would be denying it to the rightful owners (law abiding MU users). 4th Amendment lawsuit begging to happen. By only making a forensic copy of what they need and then allowing the Servers to do as they want they can legally wash their hands of any later accusations of cherry picking data.
As a voter you should do your own due diligence and look up what that was about on your own if you don't remember that personally.
Then it comes down to how much of the article was used? Was it a half hour interview of which they used 30 seconds? Was it a two minute spot to which they used 30 seconds?
She wasn't thinking... about the unintended consequences that is.
Re:
Charge em extra if they are drunk and throwing up in said toilet..