Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Everyday Copyright Violations

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the copywrong-extortion dept.

Schneier has pointed out a great law review article about the problems with copyright. The author takes a look at normal daily practices and how many commonplace actions actually result in what can be considered copyright violations. "By the end of the day, John has infringed the copyrights of twenty emails, three legal articles, an architectural rendering, a poem, five photographs, an animated character, a musical composition, a painting, and fifty notes and drawings. All told, he has committed at least eighty-three acts of infringement and faces liability in the amount of $12.45 million (to say nothing of potential criminal charges). There is nothing particularly extraordinary about John's activities. Yet if copyright holders were inclined to enforce their rights to the maximum extent allowed by law, he would be indisputably liable for a mind-boggling $4.544 billion in potential damages each year. And, surprisingly, he has not even committed a single act of infringement through P2P file sharing."

41 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. Imminent destruction! by pwnies · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the .pdf the article quotes:

    In the late afternoon, John takes his daily swim at the university pool. Before he jumps into the water, he discards his T-shirt, revealing a Captain Caveman tattoo on his right shoulder. Not only did he violate Hanna-Barbera's copyright when he got the tattoo--after all, it is an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work--he has now engaged in a unauthorized public display of the animated character. More ominously, the Copyright Act allows for the "impounding" and "destruction or other reasonable disposition" of any infringing work. Sporting the tattoo, John has become the infringing work. At best, therefore, he will have to undergo court-mandated laser tattoo removal. At worst, he faces imminent "destruction." Look on the bright side, at least we wont be seeing more of the Zune tattoo guy.
    1. Re:Imminent destruction! by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately for the author's hyperbole, tattoos of copyrighted art on one's person fall under fair use.

      Well, thanks for clearing that up.

      I had no idea that a functional majority of the Supreme Court of the United State (A) had issued a writ of certiorari in an appellate case involving copyright and fair use; (B) has chosen to collectively blog on Slashdot under a single pseudonym "bconway"; and (C) has decided to publish a definitive opinion on the scope of fair use in personal body art under the aforementioned pseudonym in the aforementioned Slashdot. As opposed to, say, The United States Reports, which is the oh-so-last-century "official" recording mechanism for SCOTUS decisions.

      I personally think you're right. But since Section 107 of US Code Title 17 doesn't call out "personal body embellishment" as one of the explicit examples of fair use, it's a judgment call. Not your judgment, not my judgment, but a court's judgment. And, if the appeal process runs far enough, the Supreme Court's judgment.

      ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but neither are most of y'all.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Imminent destruction! by amokk · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know what, people like you are the reason that Slashdot has such a bad reputation for providing dubious legal advice. You are one of the people that must firmly believe "If I read it on a blog, it must be the law."

      Since you are such a damn good lawyer, I'm sure you'll have reasonable sources to back up the claim that you're making. As another poster has already asked, please provide us some sort of peer-reviewed documentation to support your claim. Claiming that something is fair-use just because you don't like the alternative does not make it so.

      More statements along those lines:

      Killing somebody in self-defense is completely justified.
      Making 14,567 copies of a song is fair-use.
      Ripping an encrypted broadcast and distributing it to my group of friends is fair-use.

      Note, I'm not defending copyright law, as I personally think it's gotten to the point where it's ridiculous. Basically, the purpose of this post is to call you a fucking retard. Thanks.

      --
      I think, therefore I am an Atheist.
    3. Re:Imminent destruction! by theMerovingian · · Score: 5, Informative


      Based on a cursory Westlaw search using the terms 'copyright' & 'fair use' & 'tattoo', this issue has not been litigated in the US. A personal tattoo does not fall into the listed categories of fair use such as criticism, teaching, scholarship, or research. See here.

      Ordinarily, non-commercial uses that do not affect the value of the copyrighted work tend towards fair use. This limitation applies regardless of the medium of the purported infringement. In order to get some real closure to our tattoo debate, what we need is a porn star with a Mickey Mouse tattoo clearly visible in a video.

      (warning: puns incoming) That would give us reproduction in a commercial context, and someone with deep pockets to sue. /ducks

      --
      "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    4. Re:Imminent destruction! by sledge_hmmer · · Score: 4, Funny

      That "Mickey Mouse tattoo in a porn flick" sounds like an interesting idea. Quick, find out which one of us geeks does the IT for Hustler magazine. That way we might be able to get in touch with Larry Flynt and see if he wants to take on another fight! I do have a suggestions to make though - the tattoo should be Donald Duck and the man can get a blowjob while we have that audio clip of DD getting a bj actually being the soundtrack. I wonder how many copyright laws that would violate?

    5. Re:Imminent destruction! by Petrushka · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately for your hyperbole, you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. In addition, you were too lazy to read an extremely interesting article. I refer you to footnote 38:

      See, e.g., Christopher A. Harkins, Tattoos and Copyright Infringement: Celebrities, Marketers, and Businesses Beware of the Ink, 10 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 313 (2006) (using the recent infringement suit involving NBA star Rasheed Wallace's tattoo as the starting point for analyzing the minefield of ink-related copyright issues).

      Obviously the point is not very heavily tested, but it sure sounds like there's some leeway for lawsuits there.

      (Naturally I avoid quoting your post as I don't want to be guilty of infringing your copyright on it. Oh, hang on -- my quotation from n. 38 above might be defensible under the "fair use" defence in the US, but unfortunately there's no such thing as the fair use defence in my country, so I guess I'm an infringer after all. Dammit!)

    6. Re:Imminent destruction! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A personal tattoo does not fall into the listed categories of fair use such as criticism, teaching, scholarship, or research.

      Ah...but since the person in the example was a law professor couldn't he claim that the Captain Caveman tattoo was legal research because he wanted to see if he could get sued for having it and so therefore he couldn't be sued? Or would that much circular logic make a judge's head implode?

    7. Re:Imminent destruction! by tyme · · Score: 3, Informative
      Smordnys s'regrepsA wrote:

      This was a decent discussion on BoingBoing not too long ago.
      "Is it true that it's 'not infringement once fair use kicks in' ?

      Fair use is a defense to infringement where you admit infringement but say it was justified, isn't it? You affirm the boundaries of copyright but justify crossing them, rather than arguing that the boundaries should be moved. This is why it's argued on a case-by-case basis.

      This article suggests some good reasons to move the boundaries, I think."



      Not sure if that's right (IANAL), but it sure sounds like it to this lay-person.


      While IANAL, I have taken business law, so I needed to learn some of this stuff:

      Fair Use is an affirmative defense to an accusation of copyright infringement. I'm not certain, but I think an affirmative defense is more than simply an admission of guilt with an excuse. I think that an affirmative defense implies that, though the facts of the case may support the accuation ("I did make a copy of that copyrighted work"), you are asserting, as a matter of law, that you didn't violate the statute in question ("but my copy is allowed under the doctrine of fair use"). You are, in effect, claiming that no actual crime occurred, because you actions don't fall under the specific language of the statute (or are exempted by other specific language).

      In any trial there are two broad groups of things at issue: issues of fact (what things actuall happened) and issues of law (how to interpret the things that happened). Fair Use is an issue of law, not of fact. When an accusation is made against you in a court of law, you may defend yourself in several ways: you can deny the facts of the case ("I never did the thing that I am accused of doing.", "I never made any copies of the copyrighted work.") and you may deny the illegality of your actions ("I did the deed, but it is allowed under the law for this reason.", "I did make a copy of the copyrighted work, but it is allowed under fair use for this reason."). You can even defend yourself on both the facts and the law ("I never did the deed, but If I had it wouldn't have been illegal under the law for this reason.").

      --
      just a ghost in the machine.
  2. link to the actual article by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 4, Informative

    Link in the story is a blog, here is the pdf that the blog links to: http://www.turnergreen.com/publications/Tehranian_Infringement_Nation.pdf

    As an earlier poster pointed out I found the caveman tattoo bit about destruction quite funny, was also shocked to hear that "Happy birthday to you" is still under copyright, according to wiki it will expire in 2030 in the United States.

    --
    Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
    Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
    1. Re:link to the actual article by djones101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The validity of the copyright for Happy Birthday to You is also greatly in question, given the origin of the song itself. The copyright information on that can be found here.

    2. Re:link to the actual article by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it will expire in 2030 in the United States

      No. It won't.

      Sometime before that, DisneyCo will go to Congress and instruct them to extend Copyright terms again.

      And Congress will obey, like the subservient little corporate bitches they are.

      --

      Technoli
    3. Re:link to the actual article by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I know the people who made laws establishing copyright went into it with noble intentions"

      Mmm, actually, no they didnt. Originally the 'copyright' had nothing to do with authors but were a pure and simple monopoly of the licensed printers guild, granted by the king in exchange for censorship control.

      As it got slightly more codified the authors were used as an excuse to lobby for it; the authors didnt particularly matter anyway as they couldn't afford the printer, leaving them in pretty much the same situation as before.

      IIRC, as far as the US was concerned, integration of IP rights into the US constitution was mostly with great hesitation and doubt about its legitimacy.

      "it was originally intended to prevent exploitation of creators."

      Except, of course, that was never the intended purpose. Which is why copyright law is the way it is, or we'd have an actual system guaranteeing a specific cut to authors, a tax/benefit scheme, or something like that. Think 'monopoly', 'control' and 'aristocrats' or you will just get confused about why IP law is the way it is. It's a 16th century throwback from the time the king granted monopolies on salt and spices to enrich his friends (as the population tended to be on the brink of killing him over taxes so it was much less troublesome to grant monopolies that didnt seem quite like taxes...).

    4. Re:link to the actual article by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I took a class once taught by my grad school mentor that dealt with copyright law. He used to teach the standard thing of "x number of years after the author's death." I spoke with him more recently and asked him about this and he said that he now just tells his students bluntly "Anything copyrighted after the mid-20's will likely never fall into the public domain." Even in cases where stuff HAS fallen into public domain for whatever reason (abandonment, dissolution of the owning company, etc.), it can easily be de facto reclaimed if there is any financial incentive to do so (as the legal maneuverings over "It's a Wonderful Life" illustrate).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. that was a freebie by fmobus · · Score: 5, Funny

    for Bruce Schneier!

    Why a link to his blog, when all he says is boilerplate comment about the original article. Yeah, I know it's a PDF, but anyway. I believe does not need techniques like Roland's Piquepaile to get hits.

    hmm maybe I should watch my back now, considering I have bad-mouthed Bruce Schneier... brb, unplugging my box from the netwoGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAfldsfjadlkfw35r$@#%$ETW#TE%$T

  4. Applicable for all laws? by TheGoodSteven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this concept applicable to laws in general? How many of you think that you could drive to work without making a single violation? Hell, when was the last time you got on the highway and the majority of the traffic wasn't going at least 5 mph over the speed limit? And depending on what state you live in, you have varying laws that you most likely break every day. The law is getting so intricate that few people understand exactly what it entails anymore. Ideally, the law should be easily understood; written in the vernacular. We shouldn't need lawyers to translate it for us.

    1. Re:Applicable for all laws? by Kazrath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am glad you pointed out the parent's flaw in his understanding in what is being asked. The point is not the amount of laws or the expectation that the laws will not be broken, it is about the average persons ability to know right from wrong.

      For example: You get pulled over by a police officer for speeding. You knew you were speeding the "Law" was posted and quite easily understood. The police officer then writes you a ticket for speeding and adds on the additional "crimes".

      (Non comprehensive list)
      Exhaust hangs to low (My buddy actually got this one on a stock exhaust)
      Tail lights out/dim
      Tinted windows are too dark.

      And now your speeding infraction turns into something worse because the officer is taught a portion of the laws that the average civilian had no idea existed. This is the current problem with our law system and why your intended jab at the 10 commandments put mud on your face.

  5. And Fonts... by popo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone even understand copyright on fonts?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:And Fonts... by DustyShadow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Their copyrightability is questionable. The U.S. Copyright Office will not register them.
      My 2 second google search brings up this. Disclamer: I haven't read that page though other than the title.

    2. Re:And Fonts... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Does anyone even understand copyright on fonts?

      I believe I have a semi-reasonable grasp of it, but welcome anyone to correct any errors I might make. The outlines of the characters in a font are not themselves copyrighted (nor can they be). However, the digital representation of these characters is copyrighted (i.e., the font files you buy or that come with software). This also includes derivatives based upon modifying the original digital files. However, if you were to print out the characters in a font, then redraw them in FontLab or Fontographer, you could claim the copyright to your new creation. However, you will then be scorned by the typographic community for doing so unless you at least make a few modifications to some of the characters. It's somewhat similar to software in that a disassembly and reimplementation of it must take place.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:And Fonts... by RealErmine · · Score: 4, Funny

      However, you will then be scorned by the typographic community for doing so

      I wonder exactly how it would change my life for the worse should this occur. Would I be relegated to dictating correspondence to a shady "letter merchant" in dark alleys? Would the psychological oppression from being a typographic outcast cause me to break under the steady gaze of traffic signs and theater marquees? Would all children's educational programming be mysteriously absent from all the PBS channels I receive? Would the BIC company blackball me from future writing implement purchases? Truly, these are the questions that keep one awake at night.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    4. Re:And Fonts... by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      They'll just make sure your eulogy is written in Comic Sans.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
  6. This is by design, not by accident. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
    > At worst, he faces imminent "destruction."

    He has no time to survive! Make his time! (Move Zune! For great injustice!)

    Sorry. I had to.

    Since we've all seen and we all know Cardinal Richelieu's "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him." quote, and Rand's "There's no way to rule innocent man..." quote, let's go for something a little closer to home in US jurisprudence.

    "With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him."

    -Former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice, Robert H. Jackson, April 1, 1940

    Unfortunately, it wasn't an April Fool's joke.

  7. Encoding and Distributing by WED+Fan · · Score: 4, Funny

    O.K. if I encode the opening chords of Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" into a barcode and have it tatooed on my schlong, then sleep around, and then the RIAA comes after me, do I have a leg to stand on? Do I have a shot? Will they cut me off? Am I in violation? Can I be infected by a rootkit? Does taking viagra count as intent to mass distribute?

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Encoding and Distributing by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Funny

      O.K. if I encode the opening chords of Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" into a barcode and have it tatooed on my schlong, then sleep around, and then the RIAA comes after me, do I have a leg to stand on?

      Sounds like you have three.

    2. Re:Encoding and Distributing by SteveWB · · Score: 3, Informative

      if I encode the opening chords of Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord”
      Actually, if it’s just the chords, you’re fine. As I learned in a jazz arranging class, chord progressions are not copyrightable.
  8. Re:Are emails copyrighted? by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Copyright is automatic, you do not need to register a piece in order to have copyright on it.

  9. The spectre of selective enforcement by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's a very good article. The example surprised me. I thought that one would need to be much more far-fetched than he was to get the total that he gets.

    It even failed to mention some potential liabilities. When he "emails his family five photographs of the Utes football game he attended the previous Saturday," the point is the infringement of the copyright of his friend who took the pictures. He doesn't pile on the possibility that the images themselves contain copyrighted team logos, or that... this is so weird that I'm not sure I'm remembering it correctly, but I believe the owners of some buildings are now claiming that the appearance of the building itself is copyrighted and that photographing the buildings infringes... so the photographs might be infringing by showing the stadium itself.

    What he does not mention is the spectre of selective enforcement. It is very convenient for authorities if everyone is a law-breaker, because then you always have a valid pretext for prosecuting/persecuting them.

    --

    "How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

  10. Why Fair Use doesn't help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm guessing someone will raise the point of Fair Use, so I'll repost the comment I posted on Schneier's blog as to why that doesn't really help you any. Oh, and a bonus link to USC 17 (copyright law) so you can see that I'm not making this crap up. Mind you, IANAL, but you need one to make sense of that. Any layman can figure out where and how it does NOT make sense, though, which is why I encourage you all to read it.

    -----

    You guys realize that Fair Use is something you have to *prove in court* right? By the time you're proving that your use was fair, you're already on the hook for big money in legal fees.

    And how many of the copyright rules do you know? Did you know that having a TV that's too large can be copyright infringement in some cases? You can rent console games that meet very specific requirements, but you can't rent PC software (I really have to wonder where the X-Box games fall, legally speaking, given that the X-Box is just a PC, but it doesn't seem like Microsoft cares to test it and they may still meet the statutory requirements).

    Honestly, read USC 17 sometime. It's positively mind-boggling. We've got everything from international treaty created super-trademarks (the Olympics & Red Cross spring to mind), loads of crap meant to serve various lobbies, and so many screwball statutes that I don't understand at all.

    Granted, IANAL, but I think that the average person would be surprised by just how many rules there are. And those are just the statutes!

    God help you when you find out that, while "facts" aren't copyrighted, facts about a fictional work aren't really "facts" according to at least one court! That's right, the fact that Harry Potter attends Hogwarts may not be a "fact" per the law. So I might just have infringed upon Rowling's copyrights right there.

    She won't sue, you say? Actually, she IS suing someone right now over that very issue because they want to publish an unauthorized encyclopedia...

    Is it really Fair Use when there are so very many confusing rules you have to follow to maybe, hopefully be protected (with that assuming the courts decline to make a new precedent or extend existing law)?

    Or to sum up this entire post, isn't it bad if we each need our own personal lawyer just to be able to *OBEY* the law?

  11. Olig. quote by vertinox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -Ayn Rand

    Of course the same applies to copyright. The copyright laws have become so over reaching that everything we do on a daily basis could be construed as breaking a law, so if we displease the wrong person then they already have something to pin on us.
    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  12. Re:Are emails copyrighted? by Billosaur · · Score: 3, Informative

    Theoretically, a copyright exists the moment a document is created, which is to say that if I have a half-written story somehwere which someone takes and finishes, I still have copyright to the original story and they have violated my copyright without including the section I wrote via attribution a.k.a. without my express consent. Now, copyright law was a lovely idea when the world was traversable in months, only a small fraction of the population could read and write, and everything was committed to paper, but the dawn on fast travel, the Internet, and digital media makes it iffy, because it requires much more effort to establish that a work is in fact yours to begin with and then the possibility a work gets onto the Internet will cause so many copies to be created that anything short of a global corporation is going to have the resources to sue everyone for infringement. The gist of the article is simple -- the old way of handling copyright (and by extension, intellectual property) is ineffectual at best.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  13. Law on Everybody by Gadzinka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Watching as US Copyright goes south is particularly painful for someone who grew in a communist country. I was old enough before '89 to take part in political discourse, which often took form of political jokes. It was a kind of very bitter humor, uninteligible for someone who didn't breathe this air of suspicion and fear. So this is a kind of nasty flashback for me, as it reminds me the joke/saying from those times: there is a law on everybody*. As soon as you stick your head too high, to far, put your nose where it doesn't belong, someone will find a law that will punish you severly. It's kind of bitter irony, that it is US, the mythical Land of the Free of my youth.

    Robert

    * pl. na kazdego jest paragraf

    PS The nineties called and they want their "iso-8859-1 hardcoded webpages" back. Need I wait for "Web 5.0" to be able to use non-latin1 characters in /. comments?

    --
    Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  14. Oh shit, my birthday's coming up by RockMFR · · Score: 5, Funny

    Should I get a license to sing "Happy Birthday to You" from Warner Chappell? I guess I will, just to be safe...

    Name of the Client: me
    Description of the Presentation: birthday party
    Who will view the presentation? friends and family
    How many people will be attending the presentation? 20
    What is the number of locations where the presentation will take place? 1
    How many copies will be made? 25
    Will any copies be sold? No
    Please give a detailed description, including timing(s), of how the song will be used in the presentation: The song will be sung once before I blow out the candles on my birthday cake. There will be a camcorder set up and the recording will be sent to everybody at the party and some people who could not attend.
    Are you going to license an original master recording or are you going to re-record the song? Rerecording
    Will you be altering the Song's lyrics in any way: Yes
    If yes, please type new lyrics.
    Happy Birthday To You
    Happy Birthday To You
    Happy Birthday Dear RockMFR
    Happy Birthday To You
    And Many More
    On Channel 4
    And Scooby Doo
    On Channel 2
    And Frankenstein
    On Channel 9
    General Comments: no gifts, please

    *submits*

    Fee: $0.00

    :)

  15. Huge stretches.... by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The example has a number of things which either (1) are fair uses, (2) aren't infringements at all or (3) aren't subject to copyright at all.

    For example, the cell phone snapshot that happened to capture a copyright picture in the background -- that's clearly fair use. Displaying your tattoo in public doesn't make it a "public display." The forwarded emails are probably subject to an implied license and, even if they weren't, they may not contain sufficient creative expression to be copyrightable. The rough drawing of an architectural building is not an infringement (see 17 U.S.C. 120(a)). Reading the e.e. cummings poem is probably also fair use, especially if each student has a textbook containing the poem.

    Copyright law is generally *civil*, not criminal. In general, this means that a lot of wrongs are ignored by potential plaintiffs, just as a matter of tradition, convenience and politeness, just as they are with a lot of other civil wrongs -- nuisance, trespass, assault** (especially among children), etc..... Nobody goes around saying "Look at how many acts of trespass you committed today. We need to fix trespass law."

    [Note: I agree that copyright law needs some reforms; the repeal of Sonny Bono would be a great start. I just don't find this example to be very persuasive.}

  16. Re:duh by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone treats the internet like laws can't apply, but were the laws reasonable there would be no problem. Take copyright for example - if copyright law were written in such a way that noncommercial use of a work would automatically be non-infringeing, there would be no problem.

    IMO, anyone who believes that P2P really costs artists money has not given much thought to the matter. Clearly, if I've never heard of you I'm not going to buy your CD or book.

    Plagairism is another matter entirely; it should be severely punished.

    -mcgrew

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  17. Re:Yay for something everyone hear already knows! by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only way this can change is to break through the lobbying stranglehold that the content-producing cartels have on our legislatures.

    And there's the rub - you're talking about making fire cold, at least in the US. Sony gives ten million to the DemocRATs and ten million to the Re(prehensible)publicans and it doesn't matter which candidate loses, Sony wins. And as they own all the politicians, the only two chances this will change are slim and none.

    You should not be able to "contribute" to more than one candidate in any race. That's clearly a bribe. Clearly bribery is legal in the US.

    You should not be able to contribute to the election of someone you aren't eligible to vote for. John Shimkis is supposed to be MY representative, not Sony's or Bill Gates'. But a Sony lobbyist Bill Gates has easy access to Shimkis, while I have next to none.

    We have the best politicians money can buy. So long as our laws are for sale to the highest bidder, I refuse to respect them and will instead follow my own conscience.

    -mcgrew

    PS- I have a friend who reports to prison on the 1st for a drug posession charge. I have another friend whose brother spent five years in prison for loaning a drug dealer money, while the dealer spent 2 years. There is no justice in the US!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  18. Re:Imminent destruction!TELL THAT TO PRINCE by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Based on a cursory Westlaw search using the terms 'copyright' & 'fair use' & 'tattoo', this issue has not been litigated in the US. A personal tattoo does not fall into the listed categories of fair use such as criticism, teaching, scholarship, or research.

    Tell that to Prince, who has issued a takedown for a photo of a fan's Prince tattoo.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. No, sorry, your schlong is too small... an offence by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Funny

    I also doubt wether it will stand up in court.

    Someone stop me!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  21. Re:duh by pegr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone treats the internet like laws can't apply, but were the laws reasonable there would be no problem. Take copyright for example - if copyright law were written in such a way that noncommercial use of a work would automatically be non-infringeing, there would be no problem.

    IMO, anyone who believes that P2P really costs artists money has not given much thought to the matter. Clearly, if I've never heard of you I'm not going to buy your CD or book.

    Plagairism is another matter entirely; it should be severely punished.

    -pegr

  22. Re:Lost in translation? by BootNinja · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wouldn't argue with Patents and Copyrights anymore, I'd deal with the Constitutionality of the existing laws.
    Lawrence Lessig tried that already. He argued that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was unconstitutional on the basis that extending the copyright made it effectively unlimited. The court decision was that since copyright was extended before the Sonny Bono Copyright law, it was not against the constitution to do so again. For more information, go here.
  23. Important point by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately for the author's hyperbole, tattoos of copyrighted art on one's person fall under fair use.

    Other people have called you on the fact that you give us no reason to believe this, but I think I ought to call you on one more thing.

    If Joe Tattoo Artist gives me, for appropriate compensation, a tattoo of Mickey Mouse, there are three parties involved here:

    1. Me
    2. Joe Tattoo Artist
    3. Disney

    You fail to distinguish which of the parties Disney has or fails to have valid claims against. It is quite possible that Disney has no valid claim against me, but has a claim against Joe Tattoo Artist. If Joe offers tattoos of Mickey Mouse customarily as part of the services he gets paid for, and the popularity of Mickey Mouse makes his business that more profitable, I betcha Disney can go after Joe.

    Can they go after me? Well, not in general, but I bet you there are circumstances where they can. If leverage the fact that I have a Mickey Mouse tattoo, e.g., by working as a model in a way that displays my Mickey Mouse tattoo too prominently, I bet you I can get in trouble too.

    The law is subtle, and how it applies to any given case is a complicated matter. (And no, IANAL, but the fact that I understand this makes me better understand the value of the service that lawyers provide.)

    --

    Are you adequate?