I agree that there's no copyright protection. The only possible claim Hasbro can have is trademark, and if they are using the DMCA improperly, that's a different issue.
if they had just changed the name and maybe the colors, problem solved - they would not have been shut down, and no users would have left.
The Boggle clone changed its name, and its still up. There have been perfectly legal scrabble clone games published since the 1940s. I have some in my collection of antique toys and games. All you have to do is not use the trademarked name.
"Drugs are social nuisances and cause problems. "
If everything that's a "social nuisance" and that causes problems is going to be a crime, there's not a lot left we'll be able to do. Just about EVERYTHING is a nuisance to someone.
There are many ways that sociopathic mental illness manifests itself. One way is through being an amoral spammer and murderer of your family members (and suicide).
Another way is celebrating the death of innocent children in internet posts.
Thanks for the comment, that's exactly what I meant.
In the past operation names were given so that people inside the op had something to refer to, but if the enemy got wind of it, the name would disclose nothing to them. So the name was chosen with the enemy in mind.
Now the names are bullshit PR things, meaning the names are now chosen with the American public in mind. WE are now the people being manipulated by the name.
Yeah. Our military is moving from war fighting to crowd control.
Which means our military is increasingly seeing it's own populace as being the target, not an enemy nation.
It's even reflected in operation names. Used to be operation names were designed to mislead (or not lead, at least) the enemy should the enemy become aware of them - Operation Market Garden, Operation Overlord. The point was that the operation name was chosen with its impact on the target of that operation in mind.
Now we have names like "Operation Enduring Freedom."
Just who is the target of that name? Just who is it intended to mislead?
No, no, no. Three words explain why the prosecutor doesn't want to re-try the case and why this is the right thing to do in the circumstances: adversarial justice system.
That makes sense if it's a difference of opinion over the validity of evidence or whatever>
The situations I'm talking about are not those. A prosecutor that withholds evidence he knows may be exculpatory is not a prosecutor assuming he is right - that's a prosecutor being corrupt.
The examples I gave are not examples of the adversarial justice system.
They are examples of civil rights violations. They are examples of unethical behavior. They are examples of government corruption. They are examples of crimes.
A prosecutor fighting retrial over a disagreement over the validity of evidence is an example of the adversarial justice system.
A prosecutor fighting retrial over evidence they improperly and knowingly withheld is not - it's an example of a criminal trying to cover up his crime.
Prosecutors and police are not always simply motivated by doing their jobs properly. They, like other people, are also motivated by greed, personal ambition, prejudice, personality flaws.
"The Authorities" lie and break the law. Not rarely - routinely.
"If they truly cared about justice they'd say "hey we need to take another look at this". I don't know how they can live with that on their conscience anymore than I understand how defense lawyers can live with setting rapists and killers free on technicalities."
There's a difference. A prosecutor in the situation you give is placing his own career interests above the interests of justice and the law.
A defense lawyer getting someone off "on a technicality" is at the very least demonstrating an allegiance to the letter of the law and a commitment to see that all people are treated under the law equally... and often may be the last line of defense against a government bent on violating civil rights.
There's really no such thing as "getting off on a technicality." Whenever you hear that phrase it's coming from a prosecutor or police officer who at the least didn't do their job properly and at worst violated the law themselves, and got caught.
When the police searched you illegally, you "got off on a technicality." When they came into your home without a warrant, you "got off on a technicality." When they didn't properly document and control the chain of possession of evidence used to convict you, thus throwing into doubt whether it's even legitimate evidence, you "got off on a technicality." When they interrogated you improperly or otherwise throw into question the accuracy of what they claim is your testimony to police, you "got off on a technicality." When they selectively show your photo to or otherwise lead the victim into presupposing you are the guy who did it, you "got off on a technicality." When the prosecutor has withheld information that might have exonerated you or changed a jury's verdict, you "got off on a technicality."
Several years ago the ISP Buffnet was successfully prosecuted for child pornography because the local prosecutor found child porn on the usenet, and Buffnet had usenet servers. Common carrier status didn't save them.
That's exactly it. We Americans have a very distorted perspective.
Used to be you could open a little produce shop, live above it, sell produce at a reasonable price and provide personalized service to your customers, and by that make enough money to support your family and pay your bills... and that was all you needed - you were successful, your business was successful, and you were happy.
You did that until you retired, and if your kids took over the store, great - if instead they went to college and became doctors or accountants or opened up a used furniture store and did like you did - great.
The American dream, you were all happy and successful.
NOW, if your produce store doesn't become "FRUITCO," with thousands of locations, grabbing the most market share and beating out "GREENSCO" to become the biggest produce corporation on the planet with diversified subsidiaries, then you're "failing."
Nationally we seem to have an all-or-nothing mentality.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, how else are you going to be able to buy a space flight at Walmart?
I agree that there's no copyright protection. The only possible claim Hasbro can have is trademark, and if they are using the DMCA improperly, that's a different issue.
Both the scrabble clone and the boggle clone are based outside the US.
The Boggle clone changed its name, and its still up. There have been perfectly legal scrabble clone games published since the 1940s. I have some in my collection of antique toys and games. All you have to do is not use the trademarked name.
well sure, but still - someone has to be arrested first, which means it takes someone not obeying the law before it can be challenged.
"Drugs are social nuisances and cause problems. " If everything that's a "social nuisance" and that causes problems is going to be a crime, there's not a lot left we'll be able to do. Just about EVERYTHING is a nuisance to someone.
A law doesn't get tested in court until someone is charged with having broken it, and contests its constitutionality.
I work in Chicago. Let me know if you'd like to meet and tell me that in person.
Yeah there ya go... great way to show you're not mentally unstable.
"You might be unbalanced and violent."
"YOU WANNA STEP OUTSIDE AND SAY THAT?!?!"
Where the fuck did I say equally?
Seeing the world in absolutes, black/white, either/or instead of as various shades of gray is itself often a sign of mental illness.
Another way is celebrating the death of innocent children in internet posts.
Sick people both.
yep
Now the names are bullshit PR things, meaning the names are now chosen with the American public in mind. WE are now the people being manipulated by the name.
Which means our military is increasingly seeing it's own populace as being the target, not an enemy nation.
It's even reflected in operation names. Used to be operation names were designed to mislead (or not lead, at least) the enemy should the enemy become aware of them - Operation Market Garden, Operation Overlord. The point was that the operation name was chosen with its impact on the target of that operation in mind.
Now we have names like "Operation Enduring Freedom."
Just who is the target of that name? Just who is it intended to mislead?
Ooooh... you've just given me an idea for a "Licensing Agreement" text adventure!
The situations I'm talking about are not those. A prosecutor that withholds evidence he knows may be exculpatory is not a prosecutor assuming he is right - that's a prosecutor being corrupt.
The examples I gave are not examples of the adversarial justice system.
They are examples of civil rights violations. They are examples of unethical behavior. They are examples of government corruption. They are examples of crimes.
A prosecutor fighting retrial over a disagreement over the validity of evidence is an example of the adversarial justice system.
A prosecutor fighting retrial over evidence they improperly and knowingly withheld is not - it's an example of a criminal trying to cover up his crime.
Prosecutors and police are not always simply motivated by doing their jobs properly. They, like other people, are also motivated by greed, personal ambition, prejudice, personality flaws.
"The Authorities" lie and break the law. Not rarely - routinely.
Not proven guilty = not guilty. In a civilized society, anyway. Presumption of innocence. That's how we're supposed to do things here.
Well it WAS anyway, but that's pretty well gone out the window now.
There's a difference. A prosecutor in the situation you give is placing his own career interests above the interests of justice and the law.
A defense lawyer getting someone off "on a technicality" is at the very least demonstrating an allegiance to the letter of the law and a commitment to see that all people are treated under the law equally... and often may be the last line of defense against a government bent on violating civil rights.
There's really no such thing as "getting off on a technicality." Whenever you hear that phrase it's coming from a prosecutor or police officer who at the least didn't do their job properly and at worst violated the law themselves, and got caught.
When the police searched you illegally, you "got off on a technicality."
When they came into your home without a warrant, you "got off on a technicality."
When they didn't properly document and control the chain of possession of evidence used to convict you, thus throwing into doubt whether it's even legitimate evidence, you "got off on a technicality."
When they interrogated you improperly or otherwise throw into question the accuracy of what they claim is your testimony to police, you "got off on a technicality."
When they selectively show your photo to or otherwise lead the victim into presupposing you are the guy who did it, you "got off on a technicality."
When the prosecutor has withheld information that might have exonerated you or changed a jury's verdict, you "got off on a technicality."
"Got off on a technicality" = not guilty.
That brings up an interesting question. Should ALL quotes from Wikipedia be followed by [sic]?
Yes, it was an election year.
Somehow I'm not holding my breath.
It IS possible to sell well on Amazon, it just takes a little more work to get started and you have to make adjustments, possibly change merch, etc.
And Obama has lost my vote over FISA to a write-in. I do not like to be told I have no other choice but to bend over and take it.
Used to be you could open a little produce shop, live above it, sell produce at a reasonable price and provide personalized service to your customers, and by that make enough money to support your family and pay your bills... and that was all you needed - you were successful, your business was successful, and you were happy.
You did that until you retired, and if your kids took over the store, great - if instead they went to college and became doctors or accountants or opened up a used furniture store and did like you did - great.
The American dream, you were all happy and successful.
NOW, if your produce store doesn't become "FRUITCO," with thousands of locations, grabbing the most market share and beating out "GREENSCO" to become the biggest produce corporation on the planet with diversified subsidiaries, then you're "failing."
Nationally we seem to have an all-or-nothing mentality.
yeah I know, it was a joke.
... how do we know it was called Rodinia? Who left records?
"Nurse, DeBakey please.."
"Which DeBakey?"
The DeBakey Clamp.
Which DeBakey Clamp?