"The obligation to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party pursuant to Local Rule 7.1-1 was certainly not appreciated by Righthaven's undersigned outside counsel, who has been licensed to practice before this Court since 1998"
Doesn't this imply the counsel was licensed to practice law in that state? If so shouldn't he be aware of local rules of practice?
You can go to iTunes and download a free version of Angry Birds. It's basically a free preview. If you like it, you can buy the "full" game and get all the levels.
So they give something away free, which lets people experience the product and generate sales.
Not only that, I was at an amusement park recently and saw big stuffed versions for sale and as prizes for the various skill games.
They made a game with cute characters, gave a limited version away that was still enjoyable enough for people to want more and were willing to pay for more. Then they license other products based on their characters. Characters that became hugely popular because of the freely available lite version of the game.
The companies will still have to pay the puppeteers behind the digital actors. Their expressions, timing, inflections will still have to be programmed. Having a digital actor does not mean you have an AI capable of acting.
Sometimes you have to make a choice. Are screen protectors overpriced? Sure. So is a $30 USB cable. Option A. Buy the screen protectors at the price given. Option B. Don't and take the risk of getting permanent scratches on your $600 smartphone.
Nobody gets perfect deals and lowest possible prices 100% of the time. It's not as if we are unaware, but we compare price against convenience. If the price is acceptable for the perceived convenience, we will make the purchase.
I went to Best Buy last week to buy some screen protectors for my phone. For ONE plastic sticky plastic rectangle around 3in by 5in they wanted $20. I thought that was a little insane and THEN the guy offered to put it on for me...for $8.99. Seriously. Nine bucks to apply the $20 sheet to my phone.
As I put up the box I noticed another box with the exact same plastic made by the exact same company...but you get three larger sheets for the price of the one smaller one already cut to size. I told the guy I would buy the three pack for twenty bucks instead of the single sheet.
He countered me, "But you will have to use scissors with those."
I told him it would be ok, I learned how to use scissors back when they allowed them in Kindergarten.
Yes, hacking is to gain unauthorized entry to a computer or device. Cracking is to remove protection (generally some sort of CD check or other DRM) from software to make it usable by anyone.
Think Amazon and Apple will sell e-books that, once you turn the page it is gone forever? lol
I get all my music from sites like Jamendo which offers free licensed music for download and sharing. It is quite possible that a lot of this music has been shared thousands of times over, legally. Just because an mp3 is shared does not mean it is infringement. Will they manually review every file that shows up in this manner? If not, it could get very embarrassing for them.
Even with this savvy bit of tech knowledge, I'm still not interested in going to their website.
Just relaunch it showcasing new music from new artists. The artists can pay the site for promotion. Let those who demand money to be heard go find someplace willing to pay the artists to promote their music. The cost for promotion will be considerably less I suspect than what it costs to get wide coverage elsewhere.
It's not hard to imagine lots of things. Unfortunately for Apple, the case won't be decided on what their lawyers can "imagine".
Popularizing a generic term does not equal innovation.
I can't believe there hasn't been some group form up whose express purpose is to be offended by something, ANYTHING and go to every major Facebook group and complain and try to have to group shut down.
Seriously, if they can do flash mobs where people actually go meet someplace, I'm sure they could organize even larger Facebook group complaint mobs. I bet you could get thousands to complain just for the griefing factor. Imagine if you could get 5,000 complaints from offended Facebook users. I wonder how fast they could get any group shut down.
It would certainly cause FB to at least consider with more clarity what would cause a take down.
If a man buys some spray paint and uses it to paint a business' name and the word scam on the wall of another business, who does the company who's name was painted sue?
Does it sue the company on who's wall the word was painted?
Does it sue the manufacturer of the paint or perhaps the store where the paint was purchased?
Please educate yourself:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defence
If you work in any city, on an average business day, your face is probably showing up on several hundred cameras: traffic cams, ATM cams, store security cams, office security cams, etc. I think it's also a safe bet that if the government wanted to find you, they already have facial recognition software and access to pretty much any of those cams.
Upset about your friends tagging you faster on Facebook? Yes, I'm sure the government would love you to be concerned about that instead.
If the copyright on the photo is based on depth of field, framing, lighting, and all that, don't those apply to a photograph? If he put together his own version of the photograph, even if it is obviously based on that photograph, it is still his own manual interpretation. There are many details in the photograph which are and cannot be reproduced exactly in the method chosen.
Although one could argue that an unauthorized copy of content is in fact illegal.
Personally, I agree that linking to something is not a violation of law. If I drive around town and locate all the best places to find prostitutes then I put this information on the Internet, I am technically pointing people to something illegal. I'm not a lawyer, but that information I provided is publicly available, I'm just compiling it.
Some people may visit my site and go visit the prostitutes, which would be illegal (at least in my town). But I am not responsible for their actions.
Linking to websites that offer illegal things is really the same in my eyes. The information is publicly available. I am not telling anyone to do anything illegal. I am just compiling the information. Each person is responsible for their actions. But as far as I know, giving directions to prostitutes or naming websites isn't against the law in the US.
I also agree with those who point out that such websites are free research for those people looking to find illegal content online. I'm sure the police could use my theoretical prostitute site to set up stings.
On the subject of the child porn links site. I think it would make a difference if it was a list of direct links set up by the website owner. That could infer that the site owner has visited and viewed these sites and that, from what I understand is quite illegal.
The owner of a torrent site is unlikely to have personally visited, downloaded and viewed/listened to the unauthorized content.
In one case, the site owner is committing a crime certainly, in the other case, maybe not.
Re: Muscat is confused
Yes, free ancillary products and services actually add value to the product or service you intend to monetize.