In fairness, his wife spoke English with the kid, and he stopped when the kid was clearly rejecting the Klingon.
(Though also, that would probably have happened with other cases of one parent speaking one language to the kid, while understanding the dominant language used by everyone else. No reason to bother learning a language that is not necessary for communicating with anyone, including the person speaking it.)
Simple response to this: you can't assign IP that you don't own to begin with. ("Work for hire" is a sort of presumptive assignment doctrine.)
Our argument is that a language *can't* be copyrighted at all in the first place, so it doesn't really matter who made it or what contracts they had.
Of course, the *books* can be copyrighted, and the movies, and the scripts, etc. And they can use trademark to control what's "official" (mostly). But not the language itself.
Can't comment on this directly because it's out of scope for us.
However, the API cases are certainly related law. I suggest you google "Charles Duan" + Klingon, Oracle, Lexmark, and/or Cisco. You'll get relevant info; he writes well, both for posts and amicus briefs.
See http://conlang.org/axanar for our press release giving background, links to all the case docs, and a formal legal memorandum from Dentons on conlangs & IP law.
Re. safety, see here. Tl;dr: it's neither been proven safe nor unsafe in this context; a priori there's reason to believe it's safe short-term, but there've not been any long-term studies. It isn't ionizing radiation (unlike the backscatter x-ray), and isn't strong enough to outright burn (like a microwave), but who knows.
However, I don't care if it's safe, because I view it as a strip search. See my reply (link in OP), p. 9.
Let's just say that I have pretty solid, specific reasons for believing that I am on NSA's watch list that have nothing whatsoever to do with the TSA, my litigation, or being a "protestor".
That question is part of what's at issue in my litigation. I think they can't, and so does Marc Rotenberg of EPIC. They don't seem to care. TBD what the court thinks.
If someone is faced with a mandate to either go through the scanner or get denied boarding / fined / arrested / etc, then yes that would give standing. But IMHO it's better for us all if I can get an injunction before it gets to that.
The x-ray ones are no longer used by TSA (or so thy claim). It's all millimeter wave now. I know of no proof one way or the other whether MMW scanners are safe long-term. They don't produce ionizing radiation, and aren't strong enough to burn, but that's not entirely convincing. (And even if it's safe, that's no answer to the 4th Amendment concerns.)
If you're a US citizen, call your senator or representative and ask them to (a) change the laws and (b) put pressure on TSA. http://www.contactingthecongre...
I do in fact have a ticket of that sort. I refuse to go through scanning. If they won't let me board because of that, then I will have much better standing than I do now, but there's no way to guarantee that, and there's chilling effect from the mere threat.
Pretty reasonable summary of the standing issue. The liberty interest part doesn't go to standing; it goes to irreparable harm, which is a factor for getting a preliminary injunction.
Yes, I can't prove that the TSA will ultra-special-select me under their new secret rule. Nobody can. I can just prove they've done it before, they could have but did not deny it, and that creates presumption. And also that there is chilling effect.
I've got about as good standing as someone can have short of having actually been forced to undergo AIT, refused, and been refused boarding (with refusal continued pending submission to AIT).
I filed for a PI/TRO prevent anyone having to go through that test case scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Also (a) — no copyright for words.
Yes. (Not that I think they could have gotten a patent, but that's another story.)
In fairness, his wife spoke English with the kid, and he stopped when the kid was clearly rejecting the Klingon.
(Though also, that would probably have happened with other cases of one parent speaking one language to the kid, while understanding the dominant language used by everyone else. No reason to bother learning a language that is not necessary for communicating with anyone, including the person speaking it.)
Actually, the whole of Hamlet has been translated. Not just the soliloquy.
I believe we would take the same position in your hypothetical test case, though I highly doubt it would get litigated.
Me too. For now, we wait and see how Paramount responds.
Simple response to this: you can't assign IP that you don't own to begin with. ("Work for hire" is a sort of presumptive assignment doctrine.)
Our argument is that a language *can't* be copyrighted at all in the first place, so it doesn't really matter who made it or what contracts they had.
Of course, the *books* can be copyrighted, and the movies, and the scripts, etc. And they can use trademark to control what's "official" (mostly). But not the language itself.
Can't comment on this directly because it's out of scope for us.
However, the API cases are certainly related law. I suggest you google "Charles Duan" + Klingon, Oracle, Lexmark, and/or Cisco. You'll get relevant info; he writes well, both for posts and amicus briefs.
I can't comment on any discussions of legal strategy we may or may not have had with counsel. :-)
Not really relevant to the arguments in our amicus brief. Same would apply to any conlang.
Sorry, but I can't comment on that — both because it's outside of our scope (we're strictly in this for the language aspect) and it'd be speculation.
See http://conlang.org/axanar for our press release giving background, links to all the case docs, and a formal legal memorandum from Dentons on conlangs & IP law.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
Re. safety, see here. Tl;dr: it's neither been proven safe nor unsafe in this context; a priori there's reason to believe it's safe short-term, but there've not been any long-term studies. It isn't ionizing radiation (unlike the backscatter x-ray), and isn't strong enough to outright burn (like a microwave), but who knows.
However, I don't care if it's safe, because I view it as a strip search. See my reply (link in OP), p. 9.
Thanks for including actual source links. 3.
You are far more likely to be killed by drowning in your bathtub or pool than by terrorists of any kind.
So no, I won't.
Let's just say that I have pretty solid, specific reasons for believing that I am on NSA's watch list that have nothing whatsoever to do with the TSA, my litigation, or being a "protestor".
I do. It's called Great Britain.
That question is part of what's at issue in my litigation. I think they can't, and so does Marc Rotenberg of EPIC. They don't seem to care. TBD what the court thinks.
If someone is faced with a mandate to either go through the scanner or get denied boarding / fined / arrested / etc, then yes that would give standing. But IMHO it's better for us all if I can get an injunction before it gets to that.
The x-ray ones are no longer used by TSA (or so thy claim). It's all millimeter wave now. I know of no proof one way or the other whether MMW scanners are safe long-term. They don't produce ionizing radiation, and aren't strong enough to burn, but that's not entirely convincing. (And even if it's safe, that's no answer to the 4th Amendment concerns.)
If you're a US citizen, call your senator or representative and ask them to (a) change the laws and (b) put pressure on TSA. http://www.contactingthecongre...
If TSA feels like it, evidently. >.>
Correct. You have the right to avoid it, but only if you do so before you enter screening.
Don't know UK law.
I do in fact have a ticket of that sort. I refuse to go through scanning. If they won't let me board because of that, then I will have much better standing than I do now, but there's no way to guarantee that, and there's chilling effect from the mere threat.
Pretty reasonable summary of the standing issue. The liberty interest part doesn't go to standing; it goes to irreparable harm, which is a factor for getting a preliminary injunction.
Yes, I can't prove that the TSA will ultra-special-select me under their new secret rule. Nobody can. I can just prove they've done it before, they could have but did not deny it, and that creates presumption. And also that there is chilling effect.
I've got about as good standing as someone can have short of having actually been forced to undergo AIT, refused, and been refused boarding (with refusal continued pending submission to AIT).
I filed for a PI/TRO prevent anyone having to go through that test case scenario.
You're welcome.
TTBOMK I am not on any TSA list yet. I'm almost insulted. ;-)
(Almost certainly on NSA's lists though. Howdy, NSA.)