Cutting someone off, leaping out brandishing and gun and yelling "get off the bike" "get off the bike" does not look like a traffic stop.
Exactly. Just like cutting someone off, leaping out brandishing a gun and yelling "Police! Get off the bike! Get off the bike!" does not look like a traffic stop.
It's not that I think he would expect to get pulled over, but rather that he would expect that if he gets pulled over by someone, it's the police who would most likely be doing it.
Ok I'm confused will saying "police" help or hurt compliance? You've said both at this point.
Both, depending on the circumstances.
In the real situation, the cop should have identified himself. I've said that all along. That's just proper police procedure.
However, I believe Graber already knew he was being pulled over by the police, so saying "police" would have changed nothing.
But in the hypothetical situation as you believe it occurred, where he hadn't seen the marked patrol car and hadn't heard any siren or seen any flashing lights, I believe that his first reaction, given the context (ie. he's driving recklessly), would still be that the person with the gun is probably a police officer. But, you're proposing that, in that context, he decides instead that it must be a carjacker, even though he knew he was a prime candidate for being pulled over by police. In that case, I contend that saying "police" would not necessarily change anything. He's already well aware of the possibility of being pulled over by police, but has decided, for whatever reason, to discard that idea and go with the carjacker theory instead. If that's the case, why would he believe the "carjacker" is telling the truth about being police when he's already discarded that possibility? It's not like the guy saying "police" would have been the first time that thought entered his mind. He was driving like a maniac. Of course the police are going to pull him over.
Or maybe he would have believed him. It really doesn't matter. All of this is silly and pointless, because Graber knew he was being pulled over by police. It's obvious in the video, and his complaint has nothing to do with how he was ticketed, it has to do with what happened after the fact, when his house was raided and his computers confiscated.
It's not nonsensical. Criminals will sometimes claim to be police to gain compliance from victims. They do this because they know that some people will believe them and comply. Other people, however, will be suspicious, and will look at the rest of the circumstances to determine how much credibility the person claiming to be a police officer has.
If, as you say, someone who is in the process of intentionally driving recklessly on the highway chooses to make the assumption that the gun-wielding person pulling them over to the side of the road is not a police officer, as the context would suggest, but a carjacker, then I don't think claiming to be a police officer would come across as particularly credible to that individual, who has already written off that option despite it being the most obvious option under the circumstances.
You'll have to watch the video again when you get a chance. He absolutely looks directly at the car behind him at 3:00, and then immediately begins to slow to a stop. Upon coming to a stop, the marked car is the first to pull up behind him.
If the cop had just said, "Police. Get off the bike." All of this would have been a null issue.
I agree that he should have identified himself first, but if the situation was really one that appeared to be a carjacking, as you insist, then I disagree that adding the word "police" would have changed anything. Do you really think carjackers never claim to be police?
It's a null issue because Graber knew he was being pulled over. I don't believe that there is any disputing that. Graber himself is not disputing that.
There is really only one issue here, at least one that really matters, and that's the horrible abuse of the wiretapping laws to punish Graber for posting the video.
I've been thinking that the cop was stupid for even drawing the gun in the first place, but I think I may have figured that one out.
There's a pic of the helmet that Graber was wearing here (scroll down a bit). The camera is plainly visible, sticking out of the top of the helmet. It's possible that the cops didn't actually know what it was, just that there was this crazy guy flying down the highway at up to 127 mph with some bizarre device strapped to his helmet. Standard post-9/11 paranoia kicks in, and the "backup" jumps in the lead with sidearm drawn, only to realize fairly quickly that it's just a plain old camera.
In that case, there should be video of this from the forward camera in the marked car. Why hasn't it been released?
Because there's no reason to. No one, outside of Slashdot, is disputing the fact that Graber knew he was being pulled over by police.
That would also mean that the person wielding the gun knew he was being recorded.
He absolutely knew he was being recorded— by Graber. The guy was wearing a helmet with a camera mounted on top of it (see pic here). You'd have to be blind or stupid not to notice that.
An out of uniform cop in an unmarked car cuts him off. Gets out. Draws the gun. Tells him to get off the bike. It appears to be a car jacking. Only when Anthony starts trying to back away does he identify himself as state police.
You need to watch the whole video. The unmarked car doesn't just cut him off. Graber is signaled to pull over by a marked patrol car. See 3:00 when he looks back at the patrol car trailing him. It's hard to be sure due to the lack of audio, but most likely the reason he looks back is because the patrol car gave a short burst of siren. You can't see clearly that it is a marked patrol car at that point, but you do see it stopped behind him at the end of the video— at 3:34 you can see the lights on the roof, and at 3:36 you see the logo on the door.
At the time that the unmarked car "cut him off", he was already stopping for the marked patrol car. When there's a police car stopped right behind you, I don't think it's likely that someone else is going to choose that moment to try to carjack you.
There is no question that Graber knew the guy with the gun was a cop.
All that being said, not identifying himself immediately was stupid, pulling the gun was even stupider, and the whole wiretapping crap is just plain insanity.
Is this shown in the video or what's the source? That'd shed a lot of light on the situation if true.
It's in the video, but you have to watch pretty closely.
At 3:00, Graber turns around to look at the vehicle behind him. It's hard to make out the vehicle clearly from the video, and there's no audio at that point, but it's a pretty safe assumption that the reason he looked behind him was either because he saw flashing lights in his rear-view mirror, or he heard sirens, or both. Then, as he's getting off the motorcycle, he looks back and we get a better view of the vehicle that was following him. At 3:34 we can see that it has lights on it, although it's still hard to tell if they're flashing or not, and at 3:36 we see the logo on the door, making it more apparent that this is a marked patrol car.
And all of this is in addition to the fact that he had been driving recklessly at speeds of up to 127 mph, and clearly knew that he was breaking the law. In that situation, if someone pulls you over and draws a gun, the first thought in your head is likely going to be that the person is with the police, not a random carjacker.
Unidentified man, in unidentified car leaps out pointing a gun at you?
You missed the part where the unidentified man in the unidentified car was accompanied by a marked patrol car which had pulled the motorcyclist over.
What the cop did was stupid. What the department has done subsequently is even stupider. But the motorcyclist, who was also being a complete retard, knew exactly who this guy with the gun was, and the cop knew that the motorcyclist knew this— although the first words out of his mouth still should have been "State Police".
There are lot of things that are lacking in writing: accents, intonation, gesture, body language, etc. Should we encode them all?
Should we encode none of them?
Your examples (accents, intonation, gesture, body language) generally serve to add to what's being said. Sometimes, however, they are essential parts of the message being communicated, and therefore need to be encoded in writing. The question mark is one example. When speaking, we use inflection to communicate the fact that our sentence is a question. In writing, we replace the customary period with a question mark.
Sarcasm is generally the use of words to mean something other than what they literally mean, and its use is often communicated by the tone of voice. This makes it a good candidate for encoding.
Although it has never been widely accepted, according to Wikipedia, the use of punctuation to denote sarcasm dates as far back as the 1500s.
First off, throw all the resumes with certifications in the circular file. Seriously: that's the first sign they don't know what they're doing.
There seem to be two main reactions to certifications: some people think that they indicate that the person is an expert, and some people think that they indicate that the person is an idiot.
As usual, the reality is somewhere in between. Certification usually means the individual has a basic knowledge of the subject matter. They don't mean "expert" or "idiot", although some people with certifications will be experts, others will be idiots, and most will be competent professionals. It's the rest of the package (previous experience, other education, etc) that indicates which category the individual falls into.
As a consultant, the six certifications I have attained look good on my resume to indicate to prospective clients that I have at least some basic knowledge of the subjects of those certifications. My past experience and references from previous clients show that I am somewhat expert in certain areas, and at least a competent professional in the rest.
If I'm reading the various blogs correctly, what the movie studios do is set up a new company for the production of each movie, lend that new company a ton of cash for the creation of the movie.
Not only that, but the studio can bill the corporation for services provided. For example, the movie has to get distributed. The studio handles the distribution. On paper, this gets recorded as a service provided to the corporation, and the studio can pick a number out of their ass, like, say, $500 million, and bill the corporation that amount for the service. Since the studio is the corporation, no money actually changes hands. However, the corporation now has a $500 million expense that can be used to offset whatever revenues actually came in. That amount is completely fictitious, but perfectly legitimate from an accounting perspective.
At least, that's my understanding of it. I could be wrong.
By the way, "Hollywood Accounting" has prevented David Prowse from receiving royalties for Return of the Jedi. Apparently he's still waiting for that movie to start making a profit.
Language does constantly evolve to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings. However, not every proposed evolution has value. Using "to beg the question" to mean "to raise the question" adds nothing to the language, and serves merely to muddle an existing phrase. Therefore, its incorporation into acceptable speech should be fought.
He was created MORE than 20 years ago! Homer is almost 25.
The age of the character was not a selection criteria. The list includes any fictional character who had a lasting impact in pop-culture within the last 20 years, regardless of when they were created.
The Reuters article added the phrase "created for television and film" on their own.
That's the least of their problems. Number 2 (Harry Potter) was created for a book. Number 5 (Joker) was created for comics in the 1960s. Numbers 8 (Hannibal Lecter) and 9 (Carrie Bradshaw) were originally created for books as well. So this is really the list of the top characters appearing in television or film in the last 20 years.
Actually, everyone is quoting TFA and TFS, but if you actually go to the source, it doesn't actually use the words "created" or "TV". It's simply "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years". They specifically refer to the "100 greatest characters in pop-culture" and state "(w)hether the fictional women, men, ogres, muppets, babies, and cartoon rockers who made our list were initially created before 1990 didn’t matter so long as they made a lasting impact in the culture after 1990."
If the Canadian people were able to get the previous attempt stopped...
We were not able to get the previous attempt stopped. The government called an election, and that killed all bills that were in process.
The Conservatives are just stupid enough to call yet another election and kill it again, especially since they are slightly ahead of the Liberals in the polls right now, and they're big fans of playing the politics game rather than actually doing their jobs. But the Liberals will do everything they can to avoid an election right now, so if it comes down to a confidence issue, expect the Liberals to provide just enough support to let it pass, while protesting just enough to make it look like they're opposed to it.
Still, the Conservatives do not wish to lose votes. The Bloc was in favor before, yet we managed to kill the bill.
We did not "manage to kill the bill". It died on the table because the Conservatives called an election (in violation of their own recently passed law setting mandatory election dates, of course). In other words, nobody killed it, they let it die, and now they're reviving it.
If they don't sacrifice it again for another snap election, it will likely pass.
It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.
For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society.
Ah, but therein lies the problem. You're concerned with the economic benefits to society, rather than the economic benefits to the copyright holder. The problem is that modern governments aren't made up of idealistic intellectuals. Modern governments are made up of businessmen, and businessmen aren't interested in the original purpose of copyright law to benefit society, they're interested in the modern bastardized purpose of copyright law to guarantee perpetual profits to copyright holders.
Except this is a levy, not a tax. The government doesn't lose a single penny by removing it.
In order to get this passed, the government may need to throw a few concessions in the consumer's direction. Removing the levy is a simple one that costs them nothing, so it's actually a real possibility.
But wouldn't it make sense to have one format that has the flexibility to handle different types of books? From a publisher's perspective, why would they want a different file format for their graphic novels than their text-only books? Why would they want to sell certain authors who happen to enjoy playing around with the layout of their pages separately from all the rest?
I'm not saying ePub isn't a good starting point, but to have the "issue solved", as the original poster stated, it needs a bit more flexibility.
Of course, none of this really matters, as the issue the publishers are really struggling with is which DRM to support universally.
It seems to me that the main complaint about ePub is that it is text-centric, and doesn't do well with any book that requires a particular formatting, or includes anything other than text. That means no comic books, obviously, but it also eliminates many Kurt Vonnegut novels, among others.
No, TFA isn't overly precise, but it's also not that confusing. It is worth noting that they never once use the word "software". The entire article is about WB using MPV's "technology", and the linked Hollywood Reporter article discusses the whole thing as a lawsuit over an "antipiracy technology patent".
Also, if you read the complaint, it seems that the patent doesn't cover the software, it covers the actual watermark that is created on the film. The "invention" exists outside of any software, as it "is automatically transferred to any copy made from the marked print (regardless what media are used, e.g. camcorder tape, DVD or internet file)".
I haven't read the actual patent, and IANAPL, but it sounds like this might, maybe, be a legitimate patentable invention. Obviously the patent office thinks so, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.:P
Slashdot Mirror
And now we've come full circle.
Cutting someone off, leaping out brandishing and gun and yelling "get off the bike" "get off the bike" does not look like a traffic stop.
Exactly. Just like cutting someone off, leaping out brandishing a gun and yelling "Police! Get off the bike! Get off the bike!" does not look like a traffic stop.
Thank you for your time.
It's been fun.
It's not that I think he would expect to get pulled over, but rather that he would expect that if he gets pulled over by someone, it's the police who would most likely be doing it.
Ok I'm confused will saying "police" help or hurt compliance? You've said both at this point.
Both, depending on the circumstances.
In the real situation, the cop should have identified himself. I've said that all along. That's just proper police procedure.
However, I believe Graber already knew he was being pulled over by the police, so saying "police" would have changed nothing.
But in the hypothetical situation as you believe it occurred, where he hadn't seen the marked patrol car and hadn't heard any siren or seen any flashing lights, I believe that his first reaction, given the context (ie. he's driving recklessly), would still be that the person with the gun is probably a police officer. But, you're proposing that, in that context, he decides instead that it must be a carjacker, even though he knew he was a prime candidate for being pulled over by police. In that case, I contend that saying "police" would not necessarily change anything. He's already well aware of the possibility of being pulled over by police, but has decided, for whatever reason, to discard that idea and go with the carjacker theory instead. If that's the case, why would he believe the "carjacker" is telling the truth about being police when he's already discarded that possibility? It's not like the guy saying "police" would have been the first time that thought entered his mind. He was driving like a maniac. Of course the police are going to pull him over.
Or maybe he would have believed him. It really doesn't matter. All of this is silly and pointless, because Graber knew he was being pulled over by police. It's obvious in the video, and his complaint has nothing to do with how he was ticketed, it has to do with what happened after the fact, when his house was raided and his computers confiscated.
It's not nonsensical. Criminals will sometimes claim to be police to gain compliance from victims. They do this because they know that some people will believe them and comply. Other people, however, will be suspicious, and will look at the rest of the circumstances to determine how much credibility the person claiming to be a police officer has.
If, as you say, someone who is in the process of intentionally driving recklessly on the highway chooses to make the assumption that the gun-wielding person pulling them over to the side of the road is not a police officer, as the context would suggest, but a carjacker, then I don't think claiming to be a police officer would come across as particularly credible to that individual, who has already written off that option despite it being the most obvious option under the circumstances.
You'll have to watch the video again when you get a chance. He absolutely looks directly at the car behind him at 3:00, and then immediately begins to slow to a stop. Upon coming to a stop, the marked car is the first to pull up behind him.
If the cop had just said, "Police. Get off the bike." All of this would have been a null issue.
I agree that he should have identified himself first, but if the situation was really one that appeared to be a carjacking, as you insist, then I disagree that adding the word "police" would have changed anything. Do you really think carjackers never claim to be police?
It's a null issue because Graber knew he was being pulled over. I don't believe that there is any disputing that. Graber himself is not disputing that.
There is really only one issue here, at least one that really matters, and that's the horrible abuse of the wiretapping laws to punish Graber for posting the video.
I've been thinking that the cop was stupid for even drawing the gun in the first place, but I think I may have figured that one out.
There's a pic of the helmet that Graber was wearing here (scroll down a bit). The camera is plainly visible, sticking out of the top of the helmet. It's possible that the cops didn't actually know what it was, just that there was this crazy guy flying down the highway at up to 127 mph with some bizarre device strapped to his helmet. Standard post-9/11 paranoia kicks in, and the "backup" jumps in the lead with sidearm drawn, only to realize fairly quickly that it's just a plain old camera.
In that case, there should be video of this from the forward camera in the marked car. Why hasn't it been released?
Because there's no reason to. No one, outside of Slashdot, is disputing the fact that Graber knew he was being pulled over by police.
That would also mean that the person wielding the gun knew he was being recorded.
He absolutely knew he was being recorded— by Graber. The guy was wearing a helmet with a camera mounted on top of it (see pic here). You'd have to be blind or stupid not to notice that.
Misrepresentation:
The cop didn't pull him over.
An out of uniform cop in an unmarked car cuts him off. Gets out. Draws the gun. Tells him to get off the bike. It appears to be a car jacking. Only when Anthony starts trying to back away does he identify himself as state police.
You need to watch the whole video. The unmarked car doesn't just cut him off. Graber is signaled to pull over by a marked patrol car. See 3:00 when he looks back at the patrol car trailing him. It's hard to be sure due to the lack of audio, but most likely the reason he looks back is because the patrol car gave a short burst of siren. You can't see clearly that it is a marked patrol car at that point, but you do see it stopped behind him at the end of the video— at 3:34 you can see the lights on the roof, and at 3:36 you see the logo on the door.
At the time that the unmarked car "cut him off", he was already stopping for the marked patrol car. When there's a police car stopped right behind you, I don't think it's likely that someone else is going to choose that moment to try to carjack you.
There is no question that Graber knew the guy with the gun was a cop.
All that being said, not identifying himself immediately was stupid, pulling the gun was even stupider, and the whole wiretapping crap is just plain insanity.
And NONE OF THIS FUCKING MATTERS to the fact he's facing 16 years of federal prison, not for speeding, not for popping wheelies, etc. etc.
As I said in my original post:
What the cop did was stupid. What the department has done subsequently is even stupider.
I was responding to the poster who said that Graber was within his rights to shoot the cop in self-defense.
Is this shown in the video or what's the source? That'd shed a lot of light on the situation if true.
It's in the video, but you have to watch pretty closely.
At 3:00, Graber turns around to look at the vehicle behind him. It's hard to make out the vehicle clearly from the video, and there's no audio at that point, but it's a pretty safe assumption that the reason he looked behind him was either because he saw flashing lights in his rear-view mirror, or he heard sirens, or both. Then, as he's getting off the motorcycle, he looks back and we get a better view of the vehicle that was following him. At 3:34 we can see that it has lights on it, although it's still hard to tell if they're flashing or not, and at 3:36 we see the logo on the door, making it more apparent that this is a marked patrol car.
And all of this is in addition to the fact that he had been driving recklessly at speeds of up to 127 mph, and clearly knew that he was breaking the law. In that situation, if someone pulls you over and draws a gun, the first thought in your head is likely going to be that the person is with the police, not a random carjacker.
Unidentified man, in unidentified car leaps out pointing a gun at you?
You missed the part where the unidentified man in the unidentified car was accompanied by a marked patrol car which had pulled the motorcyclist over.
What the cop did was stupid. What the department has done subsequently is even stupider. But the motorcyclist, who was also being a complete retard, knew exactly who this guy with the gun was, and the cop knew that the motorcyclist knew this— although the first words out of his mouth still should have been "State Police".
There are lot of things that are lacking in writing: accents, intonation, gesture, body language, etc. Should we encode them all?
Should we encode none of them?
Your examples (accents, intonation, gesture, body language) generally serve to add to what's being said. Sometimes, however, they are essential parts of the message being communicated, and therefore need to be encoded in writing. The question mark is one example. When speaking, we use inflection to communicate the fact that our sentence is a question. In writing, we replace the customary period with a question mark.
Sarcasm is generally the use of words to mean something other than what they literally mean, and its use is often communicated by the tone of voice. This makes it a good candidate for encoding.
Although it has never been widely accepted, according to Wikipedia, the use of punctuation to denote sarcasm dates as far back as the 1500s.
First off, throw all the resumes with certifications in the circular file. Seriously: that's the first sign they don't know what they're doing.
There seem to be two main reactions to certifications: some people think that they indicate that the person is an expert, and some people think that they indicate that the person is an idiot.
As usual, the reality is somewhere in between. Certification usually means the individual has a basic knowledge of the subject matter. They don't mean "expert" or "idiot", although some people with certifications will be experts, others will be idiots, and most will be competent professionals. It's the rest of the package (previous experience, other education, etc) that indicates which category the individual falls into.
As a consultant, the six certifications I have attained look good on my resume to indicate to prospective clients that I have at least some basic knowledge of the subjects of those certifications. My past experience and references from previous clients show that I am somewhat expert in certain areas, and at least a competent professional in the rest.
If I'm reading the various blogs correctly, what the movie studios do is set up a new company for the production of each movie, lend that new company a ton of cash for the creation of the movie.
Not only that, but the studio can bill the corporation for services provided. For example, the movie has to get distributed. The studio handles the distribution. On paper, this gets recorded as a service provided to the corporation, and the studio can pick a number out of their ass, like, say, $500 million, and bill the corporation that amount for the service. Since the studio is the corporation, no money actually changes hands. However, the corporation now has a $500 million expense that can be used to offset whatever revenues actually came in. That amount is completely fictitious, but perfectly legitimate from an accounting perspective.
At least, that's my understanding of it. I could be wrong.
By the way, "Hollywood Accounting" has prevented David Prowse from receiving royalties for Return of the Jedi. Apparently he's still waiting for that movie to start making a profit.
Language does constantly evolve to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings. However, not every proposed evolution has value. Using "to beg the question" to mean "to raise the question" adds nothing to the language, and serves merely to muddle an existing phrase. Therefore, its incorporation into acceptable speech should be fought.
If you listen to the head Coast Guard guy, it's because they couldn't imagine a spill this big, and thus didn't plan for it.
Translation: they couldn't image how to deal with a spill this big, and thus choose to simply hope to $DEITY it never happened.
He was created MORE than 20 years ago! Homer is almost 25.
The age of the character was not a selection criteria. The list includes any fictional character who had a lasting impact in pop-culture within the last 20 years, regardless of when they were created.
The Reuters article added the phrase "created for television and film" on their own.
That's the least of their problems. Number 2 (Harry Potter) was created for a book. Number 5 (Joker) was created for comics in the 1960s. Numbers 8 (Hannibal Lecter) and 9 (Carrie Bradshaw) were originally created for books as well. So this is really the list of the top characters appearing in television or film in the last 20 years.
Actually, everyone is quoting TFA and TFS, but if you actually go to the source, it doesn't actually use the words "created" or "TV". It's simply "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years". They specifically refer to the "100 greatest characters in pop-culture" and state "(w)hether the fictional women, men, ogres, muppets, babies, and cartoon rockers who made our list were initially created before 1990 didn’t matter so long as they made a lasting impact in the culture after 1990."
If the Canadian people were able to get the previous attempt stopped...
We were not able to get the previous attempt stopped. The government called an election, and that killed all bills that were in process.
The Conservatives are just stupid enough to call yet another election and kill it again, especially since they are slightly ahead of the Liberals in the polls right now, and they're big fans of playing the politics game rather than actually doing their jobs. But the Liberals will do everything they can to avoid an election right now, so if it comes down to a confidence issue, expect the Liberals to provide just enough support to let it pass, while protesting just enough to make it look like they're opposed to it.
Still, the Conservatives do not wish to lose votes. The Bloc was in favor before, yet we managed to kill the bill.
We did not "manage to kill the bill". It died on the table because the Conservatives called an election (in violation of their own recently passed law setting mandatory election dates, of course). In other words, nobody killed it, they let it die, and now they're reviving it.
If they don't sacrifice it again for another snap election, it will likely pass.
It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.
For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society.
Ah, but therein lies the problem. You're concerned with the economic benefits to society, rather than the economic benefits to the copyright holder. The problem is that modern governments aren't made up of idealistic intellectuals. Modern governments are made up of businessmen, and businessmen aren't interested in the original purpose of copyright law to benefit society, they're interested in the modern bastardized purpose of copyright law to guarantee perpetual profits to copyright holders.
Except this is a levy, not a tax. The government doesn't lose a single penny by removing it.
In order to get this passed, the government may need to throw a few concessions in the consumer's direction. Removing the levy is a simple one that costs them nothing, so it's actually a real possibility.
But wouldn't it make sense to have one format that has the flexibility to handle different types of books? From a publisher's perspective, why would they want a different file format for their graphic novels than their text-only books? Why would they want to sell certain authors who happen to enjoy playing around with the layout of their pages separately from all the rest?
I'm not saying ePub isn't a good starting point, but to have the "issue solved", as the original poster stated, it needs a bit more flexibility.
Of course, none of this really matters, as the issue the publishers are really struggling with is which DRM to support universally.
Issue solved. Everyone should just listen to me.
Issue not solved.
It seems to me that the main complaint about ePub is that it is text-centric, and doesn't do well with any book that requires a particular formatting, or includes anything other than text. That means no comic books, obviously, but it also eliminates many Kurt Vonnegut novels, among others.
No, TFA isn't overly precise, but it's also not that confusing. It is worth noting that they never once use the word "software". The entire article is about WB using MPV's "technology", and the linked Hollywood Reporter article discusses the whole thing as a lawsuit over an "antipiracy technology patent".
Also, if you read the complaint, it seems that the patent doesn't cover the software, it covers the actual watermark that is created on the film. The "invention" exists outside of any software, as it "is automatically transferred to any copy made from the marked print (regardless what media are used, e.g. camcorder tape, DVD or internet file)".
I haven't read the actual patent, and IANAPL, but it sounds like this might, maybe, be a legitimate patentable invention. Obviously the patent office thinks so, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. :P