Sheogorath 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1548)

• On the post: BMI Records Record Revenue… While Whining To DOJ That It Can't Function Under Antitrust Agreement

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 03:31pm

  Re: Re: Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?

  No, stealing copyright is something the NY Times engages in (under its ToS). Infringing copyright is called infringement.

• On the post: Getty Images Tries To Copyright Troll 2600 Magazine Over Content It Has No Copyright Over

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 12:21pm

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

  (-_Q) 'Has non-exclusive licence' =/= 'other party is relying on exclusive licence'. The same applies when using the fact of a non-exclusive licence as an affirmative defence against a trolling copyright infringement lawsuit.

• On the post: Getty Images Tries To Copyright Troll 2600 Magazine Over Content It Has No Copyright Over

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 12:15pm

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

  Yes, it is. If Loadus had granted an exclusive licence to Trunk, then he would no longer be able to provide non-exclusive licences to anyone else on the work in question and would have not only had to delete the sentences that provide the licence, he'd have had to pull the work off of DeviantArt as well.

• On the post: BMI Records Record Revenue… While Whining To DOJ That It Can't Function Under Antitrust Agreement

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 03:20pm

  "BMI, whose full name is Broadcast Music Inc., collected $1.013 billion for the 12 months that ended in June, up almost 4 percent from the year before."
  Of this amount, slightly less than $15 million will be distributed amongst the most famous record companies that BMI represents. It is unknown how much of that $15 million will reach the artists and bands that have earned it and how much will get swallowed up by creative accounting. Just sayin'. ;(

• On the post: Getty Images Tries To Copyright Troll 2600 Magazine Over Content It Has No Copyright Over

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 01:16am

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

  (-_Q) The point I suggested 2600 should make is that the licence is non-exclusive. You know, not exclusive?
  But why would 2600 say that Trunk has any kind of license at all? They don't know that.
  Right, the phrase Free for non-commercial/commercial use that Loadus posted under his work is absolutely no clue as to another party's licence status when using it at all. (-_Q)(-_Q)

• On the post: Getty Images Tries To Copyright Troll 2600 Magazine Over Content It Has No Copyright Over

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 01:05am

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

  I'd be careful, what you just said is a defamatory accusation of a regular contributor to this website, given the fact that Mike's always signed in when he comments.

• On the post: Court Rules Gran Turismo Protected By 1st Amendment In Including Company Logos For Realism

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 01:01am

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

  I was wrong, apparently. It wasn't an AC who left the comment I last replied to, it was fqk.

• On the post: Should Police Have The Right To Take Control Of Self-Driving Cars?

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 12:56am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Two batons, actually, and they do in the UK.

• On the post: Should Police Have The Right To Take Control Of Self-Driving Cars?

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2015 @ 12:47pm

  Re: Re:

  People generally don't stand in the middle of the road, wearing large white gauntlets and waving white batons in a series of pre-set signals. Given that description, I don't think it's too hard to teach a self-driving vehicle the difference between ordinary pedestrians and traffic cops.

• On the post: Court Rules Gran Turismo Protected By 1st Amendment In Including Company Logos For Realism

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2015 @ 12:38pm

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

  AC said whilst gazing into the mirror.

• On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2015 @ 12:27pm

  Re: Re:

  Hence the sarc mark; I was using it on two levels.

• On the post: Getty Images Tries To Copyright Troll 2600 Magazine Over Content It Has No Copyright Over

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2015 @ 12:24pm

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

  You're the person who suggested 2600 should argue that Trunk Archive has a non-exclusive license.
  Actually, no I didn't. I suggested that 2600 should point to the wording on the original work and use it to state that both parties (not just Trunk) have a non-exclusive licence which the plaintiff is abusing. Additionally, it was an AC who made the comment to which I replied, not Mike Masnick. Again, read carefully. The ability to do so is just very basic.

• On the post: Getty Images Tries To Copyright Troll 2600 Magazine Over Content It Has No Copyright Over

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2015 @ 05:36am

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

  The idea I was referring to was in the comment to which I replied, not the article. I think you need to read more carefully.

• On the post: Court Rules Gran Turismo Protected By 1st Amendment In Including Company Logos For Realism

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2015 @ 05:32am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Actually if you read the decision on this the judge has allowed the case to continue on right of publicity of the owner, so this may very well cost Sony in the end.
  Doubtful. Any sensible judge will rule that Virag is basically enjoying free product placement and thus rule against them.
  [...] "ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS" (caps from the document).
  A document which isn't linked to from either this article or the Gamasutra one, and which would probably be a pain in the arse to read on a mobile phone (PDF) if it was. Your point?

• On the post: Colorado Judge Ignores First Amendment, Allows Prior Restraint In Banning Aretha Franklin Film

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2015 @ 12:07pm

  I have a publicity right in this comment and I don't want Techdirt to publish it. If they try, then I want an injunction to prevent the publication of this comment.
  How's that for an equally ridiculous request (although in this case, I am technically the publisher)?

• On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2015 @ 11:57am

  Amendment I
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  “Shoot your mouth off all you want. Eventually we are going to kill you,” the senior counter-terrorism official said.
  No, I'm not seeing the contradiction. /s

• On the post: Court Rules Gran Turismo Protected By 1st Amendment In Including Company Logos For Realism

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2015 @ 08:16pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  My point that it's the movie studios that get paid sponsorship fees for product placement rather than having to pay licencing fees to include the logos still stands, but nice attempt at redirection. I pity the fool...

• On the post: Court Rules Gran Turismo Protected By 1st Amendment In Including Company Logos For Realism

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2015 @ 07:12pm

  Re:

  Meaning that movie studios could use this as a signal that they don't have to pay companies for product placement.
  You're obviously confused. This case is about including trademarks for purposes of veracity, whereas product placement is a form of sponsorship wherein PepsiCo pays a movie studio to have characters drinking nothing but Mountain Dew (for example). Basically, this case sets the precedent that a movie studio or games developer/publisher don't have to clear the appearance of logos if they appear the same way in real life, it says nothing about the right of movie studios to turn down sponsorship fees for product placement, which they've always had.

• On the post: Dennys Rodriguez's Supreme Court Win Fails To Help Dennys Rodriguez

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2015 @ 04:29pm

  Re: Re: Re: Law, what law?

  That's pretty much my argument, thanks for boiling it down. :)

• On the post: Getty Images Tries To Copyright Troll 2600 Magazine Over Content It Has No Copyright Over

  

  Sheogorath ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2015 @ 04:27pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I was actually responding to the idea that Trunk is claiming that they have an exclusive licence to use the original work, but forgot to quote the sentence in question because dyslexia. Sorry. :(

Next >>