The problem I have with Hollywood Accounting is that I consider it very dishonest, to the point of fraud, for the producers/studio to imply that the movie might make a profit (by offering profit-based compensation) when history shows that the only part of the studio that makes a profit is marketing and distribution, by charging insane margins.
It's still in the class of "any sort of agreement". But if you're looking at government only, there's also agreements to not reveal classified material, which does carry criminal penalties.
Pulling over all cars for a traffic safety checkpoint is considered legit (http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1935). Requiring the breath test is probably not, but if it's really voluntary, then that shouldn't be a problem. Misrepresenting whether it's voluntary is a big problem.
I read somewhere that the first hospital they took him to did refuse. In the article I can find it's claimed that the hospital where the procedure was carried out was, in fact, not in the county specified by their warrant, and that the procedure was not carried out in the timeframe specified by the warrant; both of these, I suspect, are because the first hospital refused and they had to find another one. I have a feeling David Eckert's lawyer is chortling with glee over the failure to get a revised warrant:)
A possibly significant factor is that the gas tank is at the back of the vehicle, usually, rather than the front; running over debris is more likely to peg the engine than the tank. The Model S, on the other hand has batteries both front and rear. If they manage to double the battery energy density, I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla comes up with a vehicle design where the batteries are all in the rear.
That said, the fact that even with the front end melted to the ground, the passenger compartment was fine makes me feel pretty safe.
by overcharging for parts and padding service times, of course. Enough people will go to the dealer to get work done even if they know what the code means.
One of the (theoretical) points of a patent is to reveal enough information about the idea and method for implementing it that someone else can do it. So 'ripping off' is pretty easy.
One point of TFA is that WB is claiming "being wrong about whether it infringes isn't perjury as long as we believed in good faith that it infringed, and we had faith in our computer program," and they're right. The part of the takedown saying "we represent Warner Brothers" is subject to perjury, but the rest of it is subject to 'good faith' rules. And bad faith is hard to prove unless you can find a "smoking gun" type memo or email. (Notably, the case where an actual human filed a takedown request directly is going to a jury because the judge feels that the filer could well have known the material didn't infringe on WB's stuff.)
The other point of the TFA is that while Warner Brothers is right about the law, this whole situation illustrates that the law sucks because it's slanted as hell, which I agree with fully.
The DMCA only requires you to have a good faith belief that the material infringes, but it requires you (under penalty of perjury) to assert that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder of the (allegedly) infringed material. So you pretty much have to hold some copyrights to be able to do anything, but if you do have them you can go to town.
They could cover or sample already existing background music. Or, since I would expect that instrumental background music would get a bit less scrutiny than top 40, songwriters could keep working in that area. (I would also like to note that I don't think all songwriters retiring would be a _good_ thing, just that that's about the only way to be sure that you won't infringe.)
While I can't disagree that the legal environment does seem to be stacked and getting more so, my point was that words, by affecting the preconceptions of ones peer group, most definitely _can_ hurt, in ways that "sucking it up" can't help with even if the target is emotionally capable of doing so.
"sticks and stones" is the stupidest bit of bullcrap I heard before age 6. If words can't hurt, why do we have laws about libel, slander, defamation of character, emotional abuse...
High penalties don't deter more than low ones if the subject doesn't think they'll get busted, and nobody thinks they'll get busted for something they don't think will happen. So what you really need is for people to actually accurately understand the risk level. Good luck with that =/
Sure, and you can use this case as precedent in your defense. Make sure your method of presenting the scanned books is at least as hard to read or you'll lose the "not competitive with the original book" clause.
Perhaps "people who've finished all their ps3 games but still use it as their disc player and would rather replace it entirely than just add more stuff to the living room"?
Slashdot Mirror
I realize nobody is promised a profit. My opinion has nothing to do with screenwriters in particular. I believe http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/ (particularly the balance sheet) explains my point of view sufficiently. After all, if big movies are so unprofitable, why do they keep making them?
The problem I have with Hollywood Accounting is that I consider it very dishonest, to the point of fraud, for the producers/studio to imply that the movie might make a profit (by offering profit-based compensation) when history shows that the only part of the studio that makes a profit is marketing and distribution, by charging insane margins.
and the ones who happen to be downwind.
It's still in the class of "any sort of agreement". But if you're looking at government only, there's also agreements to not reveal classified material, which does carry criminal penalties.
Pulling over all cars for a traffic safety checkpoint is considered legit (http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1935). Requiring the breath test is probably not, but if it's really voluntary, then that shouldn't be a problem. Misrepresenting whether it's voluntary is a big problem.
except freedom of speech can be surrendered voluntarily by signing an NDA. Etc.
I read somewhere that the first hospital they took him to did refuse. In the article I can find it's claimed that the hospital where the procedure was carried out was, in fact, not in the county specified by their warrant, and that the procedure was not carried out in the timeframe specified by the warrant; both of these, I suspect, are because the first hospital refused and they had to find another one. I have a feeling David Eckert's lawyer is chortling with glee over the failure to get a revised warrant :)
A possibly significant factor is that the gas tank is at the back of the vehicle, usually, rather than the front; running over debris is more likely to peg the engine than the tank. The Model S, on the other hand has batteries both front and rear. If they manage to double the battery energy density, I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla comes up with a vehicle design where the batteries are all in the rear.
That said, the fact that even with the front end melted to the ground, the passenger compartment was fine makes me feel pretty safe.
by overcharging for parts and padding service times, of course. Enough people will go to the dealer to get work done even if they know what the code means.
One of the (theoretical) points of a patent is to reveal enough information about the idea and method for implementing it that someone else can do it. So 'ripping off' is pretty easy.
One point of TFA is that WB is claiming "being wrong about whether it infringes isn't perjury as long as we believed in good faith that it infringed, and we had faith in our computer program," and they're right. The part of the takedown saying "we represent Warner Brothers" is subject to perjury, but the rest of it is subject to 'good faith' rules. And bad faith is hard to prove unless you can find a "smoking gun" type memo or email. (Notably, the case where an actual human filed a takedown request directly is going to a jury because the judge feels that the filer could well have known the material didn't infringe on WB's stuff.)
The other point of the TFA is that while Warner Brothers is right about the law, this whole situation illustrates that the law sucks because it's slanted as hell, which I agree with fully.
and sadly, since fair use is an affirmative defense and not a right, they're correct unless your lawyer is better than theirs.
The DMCA only requires you to have a good faith belief that the material infringes, but it requires you (under penalty of perjury) to assert that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder of the (allegedly) infringed material. So you pretty much have to hold some copyrights to be able to do anything, but if you do have them you can go to town.
They could cover or sample already existing background music. Or, since I would expect that instrumental background music would get a bit less scrutiny than top 40, songwriters could keep working in that area. (I would also like to note that I don't think all songwriters retiring would be a _good_ thing, just that that's about the only way to be sure that you won't infringe.)
While I can't disagree that the legal environment does seem to be stacked and getting more so, my point was that words, by affecting the preconceptions of ones peer group, most definitely _can_ hurt, in ways that "sucking it up" can't help with even if the target is emotionally capable of doing so.
"sticks and stones" is the stupidest bit of bullcrap I heard before age 6. If words can't hurt, why do we have laws about libel, slander, defamation of character, emotional abuse...
retire
High penalties don't deter more than low ones if the subject doesn't think they'll get busted, and nobody thinks they'll get busted for something they don't think will happen. So what you really need is for people to actually accurately understand the risk level. Good luck with that =/
People reading on their phone's kindle app annoy you? Why?
Sure, and you can use this case as precedent in your defense. Make sure your method of presenting the scanned books is at least as hard to read or you'll lose the "not competitive with the original book" clause.
or just want a (really) inexpensive program that can do layers.
because taxi drivers get pissy about taking me to the grocery store a mile away and waiting 30 minutes for me to get back. And they charge more.
Perhaps "people who've finished all their ps3 games but still use it as their disc player and would rather replace it entirely than just add more stuff to the living room"?
Or perhaps it's just "I doubt they'll ever see the response, so why bother?"
so at best it's a waste of time, and at worst it's a(nother) way for someone to arbitrarily reject research proposals.