Preeeetty sure that if you take one step back (as far back is needed to see Luke 19:11-27) you'll see a parable was being told, and Jesus was quoting a king.
Not taking sides, just.. not a fan of quote mining. No offense.
Right. Because exercising your rights under the law as the last option after seeking settlement out of court is "using it as a weapon."
Got it.
Your problem apparently isn't with Mr. Teller, but copyright law. Good luck there.
If he actually changed the work after reverse engineering the trick, it might not have been a violation, and yes, you can own and copyright pantomime routines such as this given certain elements. The law on it is a little vague, of course, thus the "testing the waters of magic trick copyrights" sort of language here.
I'm curious as to how this is insane, really.
lol "Thug"? What's with this attitude of "how dare he legitimately pursue action according to copyright law"? It's not like he's patent trolling magic tricks here, this was a pretty direct violation of copyright and they did try to pursue matters out of court.
So then why should performers and content generators even register copyrights for things at all if pursuing the legal action that is associated with violating that copyright is going to "devalue their reputation"?
I don't think one iota less of Mr. Teller for pursuing legal action for the violation of copyright. I wouldn't think less of him for not pursuing it either, but he is. It is his prerogative by the law and not remotely harmful to his "reputation" in any way that is not superficial. If he were patent trolling that would be one thing, but this is another thing - a legitimate application of copyright law - altogether.
So, yknow. Relax.
I never understood the insistence of the religious to, when the subject of criticism, drag the critic down and call them "religious" as well.
Seriously, isn't that just recognizing that the religious mindset is a problem but then trying to commit a tu quoque?
It's like the folks who insist that "atheism is a religion" (by no means is that argument coherent, given any generally accepted definition of atheism) in a hackneyed attempt to establish an "even playing field" of irrationality.
Also it's an asinine comment to make.
inb4 downmodded, but at least I didn't post as AC.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello 2005
Scratch shipping.
Shipping, packaging, advertising, and continued tech support costs are probably factored in.
When he said, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ5cNqXgKUo
Suddenly the Red and Blue teams of Team Fortress make more sense...
The fastest, the furthest. The best. And I should know, because... My name is Max!
Wait, I already tossed all my silver into my local church and now I've got the noose ready.. You mean this was always a quote mine?!
Preeeetty sure that if you take one step back (as far back is needed to see Luke 19:11-27) you'll see a parable was being told, and Jesus was quoting a king. Not taking sides, just.. not a fan of quote mining. No offense.
Hoo boy.
Right. Because exercising your rights under the law as the last option after seeking settlement out of court is "using it as a weapon." Got it. Your problem apparently isn't with Mr. Teller, but copyright law. Good luck there.
Dislike and refuse to write down are two different animals. Copyright office probably has the whole thing written down and described in a file.
What a shame. Copyright law covers rehearsed and written-down performances.
You can copyright a performance that has its steps written down, improvised performances must be recorded, etc.
Pretty sure Penn's the libertarian of the two.
If he actually changed the work after reverse engineering the trick, it might not have been a violation, and yes, you can own and copyright pantomime routines such as this given certain elements. The law on it is a little vague, of course, thus the "testing the waters of magic trick copyrights" sort of language here. I'm curious as to how this is insane, really.
lol "Thug"? What's with this attitude of "how dare he legitimately pursue action according to copyright law"? It's not like he's patent trolling magic tricks here, this was a pretty direct violation of copyright and they did try to pursue matters out of court.
So then why should performers and content generators even register copyrights for things at all if pursuing the legal action that is associated with violating that copyright is going to "devalue their reputation"? I don't think one iota less of Mr. Teller for pursuing legal action for the violation of copyright. I wouldn't think less of him for not pursuing it either, but he is. It is his prerogative by the law and not remotely harmful to his "reputation" in any way that is not superficial. If he were patent trolling that would be one thing, but this is another thing - a legitimate application of copyright law - altogether. So, yknow. Relax.
I never understood the insistence of the religious to, when the subject of criticism, drag the critic down and call them "religious" as well. Seriously, isn't that just recognizing that the religious mindset is a problem but then trying to commit a tu quoque? It's like the folks who insist that "atheism is a religion" (by no means is that argument coherent, given any generally accepted definition of atheism) in a hackneyed attempt to establish an "even playing field" of irrationality. Also it's an asinine comment to make. inb4 downmodded, but at least I didn't post as AC.
Delicious.
Isn't that what the soft serve beer is, precisely? Beer foam ice?
Why would you ruin your beer with frozen *water*?
HERE WE GO Line the antivax folks up to half-read this summary.
Oh man. I remember when myg0t clan posted this as an April Fool's joke some 10 years ago. Jeez.
Any surprise that the troll posts are mostly AC? Nope.
0/10 unless you're not sitting in a heated room