Please note that I completely understand that this is never going to happen, by the OP has a very good point.
There is no technical issue here, no MSFT software required, etc - you would do it the same way you get a driver's license.
Basically, you would go to your local DBI (Dept. of Broadband Internet), and apply for a "Broadband License". You take a written test for the OS you plan to use, and if you pass, you get a license. The ISP only needs to check your license when you order service.
If this is not enough, then the ISP could monitor its networks (which, in all honestly would be a big step in the right direction *today* as the cable ISPs don't do jack about all the crap coming from their networks), suspend accounts that are hijacked, and assess "points" ala your driver's license.
As mentioned, it's assigning responsibility (which, is another reason this would never fly... as far as I can tell in the US you are no longer responsible for anything you do - someone else is).
Again. Pipe dream. But the concept of licensing isn't that bad of an idea. About 80% of the junk traffic I see hitting our mail machine comes from dynamic DSL and Cable IPs (Which SpamAssassin usually swats away, but that doesn't change the fact).
2) What computer were they running Vista on? The Aero UI wasn't running, implying that either they were running it on an old PC, or that the author was so unfamiliar with the OS that he didn't realise!
If you actually read the article, he makes a point of saying he's not running Aero, and why.
I can tell you if it weren't for buildout requirements, I wouldn't have phone, garbage or power service.
When not having internet access or cable TV can cause you to die (Like not having power, or a phone to contact someone in an emergency), come talk to us. I'm glad you have garbage service - where i grew up (rural Ohio), we burned it out back or took it to the dump in our pickup.
Buildout requirements for necessities makes sense. Buildout requirements for your entertainment don't. When you choose to live far away from other people, why should those other people have to foot the bill for non-necessities?
I'm guessing you have a well and septic if you're in a rural area... are you also complaining that you don't have water and sewer services? Much like water, anyone living in rural areas aleady has a viable alternative for both TV and Internet - Satellite.
"but to own and operate the technology to achieve this seems to be no less complex than having a $20 pick-pocket help you get it."
Do you travel? I ask because I do, and I would like to see a "$20 pick-pocket" take my passport. I don't exactly carry it where this would be possible. And when I'm not carrying it, it's usually in a hotel safe. I tend to want to be able to get back into my country, so I'm carefull like that.
Putting an RFID chip on it changes this game. Unless I have a cage around it, the inside pocket of my jacket and the hotel safe no longer provide any security for the informaion contained therin.
And the idea that "The information printed on the passport is the same" doesn't really hold water. People doing menial jobs are, generally, lazy/unattentive. For example, my wife and I have credit cards that are the kind with your photograph printed on them. I've tried this a number of times (because I'm silly like that), and it has only failed once - I'll take her card and use it (without her with me or in view). Except for *one* time, I've never had a problem using her card. Nevermind that the picture on it obviously isn't me, the name on the card isn't right, and the signature certainly doesn't match.
The only way this passport RFID thing would work is if they actually came up with a worldwide system and simply encoded an ID number into the passport. You wave your passport in front of the reader, and up on the computer screen pops your picture, info, etc from the database. The passport simply becomes record number, with no actual information on/in it.
Of course, this also assumes a computer/database/network system that can not be hacked... but considering we have this with the banking systems (for the most part), this is not exactly an impossible task.
And this, ladies and gentlemen (well, gentlemen), is why email hosts have these whitelists and why people use them. "Would you like to not opt-out of our informative and exciting hourly emails?"
Oooh, I just love it when people make stupid assumptions!
Here's the total list of emails sent by our system, to which I was referring:
1) MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) restricted item pricing. This is the biggest. It is sent when a customer requests it to be sent to get pricing on a MAP controlled item to be able to purchase it. If you don't know / understand what this means, look it up. It's a big thing in our industry. 2) Human-written Responses to customer emails (these don't happen at 2am, Obviously. Usually we can hit the challenge response on these) 3) "Your order has shipped" notices. 4) "Your order has been delayed" notices. 5) "Something is on backorder" notices.
And then the earthlink user complains they didn't get the email.
Thanks for the info... I obviously don't use Earthlink so I didn't know the user could still view the email even though the challenge wasn't responded to. I suspect, however, that many people have gotten to the point where they don't bother to even read through that folder You would think they would if they were expecting something, but... assumptions never seem to work out.
As for the email address, our outgoing address has been the same for years. It never changes (You should see how much junk we get per day).
I run an online retail business, and non-tech savy customers using earthlink don't get a lot of our email.
Biggest problem is that Earthlink uses a white-list spam blocking setup that sends back a time-limited challenge to the sender ("Please go to this link and fill in this form so that this user can receive your mail").
We get these challenges when our automated system sends messages to customers... but there's simply no practical way to respond to them all within the time limit (during business hours it's not practical - it's impossible at 2am while you're sleeping). And unfortunately it seems that a lot of their members simply don't understand what it means when you tell them they have to add you to their list or they won't get your email.
There are large amounts of small companies that probably do not have campus grade layer 2/3 devices that can accomodate QoS or traffic shaping, so adding the functionality at an end-point is honestly a good idea.
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, if you read the article, Vista doesn't provide this. All it does is allow tagging of packets with values that QoS enabled network equipment can use.
FTA: "Vista's ability to use centrally configured group-policies to push out policies to specific users or servers, and allows tagging of packets with the Diffserv code point values, so that our network infrastructure can see the marking and react to it in different ways - whether it's VoIP traffic, or TCP/IP business critical traffic, or web-surfing traffic. (Granted, this QoS doesn't guarantee anything, it just marks the packet in Windows and it is up to your network infrastructure to honor those tags.)"
Rather interesting that the quote in the summary here on slashdot skipped this (emphasis mine):
FTFA: "Vista's ability to use centrally configured group-policies to push out policies to specific users or servers, and allows tagging of packets with the Diffserv code point values, so that our network infrastructure can see the marking and react to it in different ways - whether it's VoIP traffic, or TCP/IP business critical traffic, or web-surfing traffic. (Granted, this QoS doesn't guarantee anything, it just marks the packet in Windows and it is up to your network infrastructure to honor those tags.)"
So... it really doesn't do much. It may be slightly more convenient to configure QoS on your routers based on the tags rather than port numbers... but that's about it.
Ever wonder if this was MS's plan all along? Not to win?
By funding this charade via SCO, they bought themselves time.
Linux had been gaining server market share, and they knew their new product was going to be severely delayed.... so why not toss some serious FUD into the market as long as possible until they could get their new platform to market? Vista comes out, SCO goes down the tubes. It's win-win for MS.
I'm not usually in the tinfoil fedora (pun somewhat intended)camp but this thought came to mind this morning.
Just casually watching the eBay auctions for a few minutes shows that actually getting your money from your auction would be... unlikely.
Basically, there's a bunch of kids (Or just immature adults) that are bidding up every auction to beyond ridiculous. It's the same names over and over, a mixture of new accounts and obviously hijacked ones.
Looking at "completed" auctions, I would say that about 1 out of every 10 has managed to get an actual buyer (slipped by the kids) and even then as a buyer... I'd be skeptical that all the bids below me were legitimate.
Basically... buying or selling one today on eBay is a nightmare, I wouldn't want to be doing either (Not that I'll be buying one at any time on eBay... I personally can wait until the first price drop next year... if at all.
Right on point one, but are you right on point two? The site was selling a derivative work of the movie Serenity, but from the links in the article and the comments elsewhere in this discussion, there seemed to be an implied permission for the fans to be allowed to self-promote the movie.
They can have a whole boatload of implied permission. They didn't have explicit permission.
Nevermind that in all honesty, I don't see "Hey, you can sell stuff for profit" was what they were implying:) The simple fact is that if he asked for permission to sell merchandise on the web using their material, the answer would have been no. The jump from "Members were encouraged to form regional groups to promote the film and perform activities that would help generate word of mouth, like creating bumper stickers and gift cards to accompany the DVD release." to "Sell T-Shirts on the internet months later" seems a bit of a stretch to me.
While no contract with the groups where signed, it sounds like Universal knew that some forms derivative works or use of Universal's trademarks where going to be used in the form of promoting the movie. So does Universal have a right to demand retroactive license fees, from the members of these groups?
They only demanded the fee if he wished to continue selling merchandise using their copyrighted material, unless I read his blog wrong. As for knowing that some works would be created, that's fine... but some is not all. I haven't seen that they have gone after anyone that was doing the things they told people to do.
What are you some kind of MPAA shill that must make absurd leaps of logic to make his point?
The point was made in the extreme opposite of the one presented. You said "Fair use", I asked what was fair use about using someone else's work for your own personal gain.
What I SAID was since the copyright owner had been taking advantage of the fanbase to market their IP, some quid pro quo seems perfectly reasonable. While copyright exists to protect the rights of the creator, we as democratic societies also have the rights to limit what those rights are particularly in stupid cases like this. Show me harm to Serenity's sales (which was the original purpose of copyright) and I might start taking you seriously.
How was the fanbase taken advantage of? Did someone promise them something in return and not deliver it? I was under the opinion that this was not the case.
What you find reasonable and what the copyright owner does is obviously not the same. Universal never granted the right to use the copyrighted material or derived works on T-Shirts to these fans, therefore they don't have the right under US copyright law. This makes perfect sense to me.
The fact of the matter is that if the original work (Firefly) didn't exist, then neither would any of this. We wouldn't be having this conversation. This work is based on someone else's work, without permission.
If you disagree with this part of US copyright law, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with you.
Since you want to nitpick what I wrote literally instead of simply taking it for what it was, let me rewrite it for you:
"He was using their copyrighted material without permission. This is a copyright violation".
You can't create a "Derivative work" without permission (for any reason, not just profit). He did. He did not have explicit permission. They told him to stop. End of Story.
That's the way US copyright law works. Look it up.
The link you provide takes you to his store which now only contains non-infringing items - he removed the ones they told him to.
Since I am no laywer and I don't live in the U.S, my own estimate that this is Universal trying to claim ownership of something that they don't own
They own the original work, and any "Derived work". He was selling works wholey derived from their creation without permission. Under US copyright law, he can't do that.
People were *NOT* using property owned by Universal. At least in a large degree, if at all.
They were using originally created artwork, granted referencing Serenity/Firefly.
Really? "Originally created", yet it wouldn't exist and no one would buy it unless someone else had made a TV series called "Firefly" and a movie called "Serenity". Interesting concept.
It's called a "Derived Work". And it's a copyright violation unless they received permission from the copyright holder to create it.
If you think that you should be able to profit from others' work and disagree with copyright law, I respect your opinion, I just don't happen to agree with it.
Sorry mate, I disagree. You are wrong. You clearly believe in the absolute rights of copyright holders. I believe in fair use and implicit covenants between seller and buyer. But then we in the UK have more of those enshrined in law than you do in the US.
Where am I "Wrong"? That's how copyright currently works in the US. You do not have a right to create a "Derivative work" from another. And yes, I do believe that the copyright holder should have... a copyright, especially when it comes to for-profit endevours.
As for "Fair use"... what's the fair use in this case? (Seriously). He didn't buy anything from them (except maybe a movie ticket or DVD), and he's selling things wholey based on their creation. If the series/movie didn't exist, neither would these items. He can only sell these things because someone else spent a lot more money and did a lot more work.
And taking this idea of fair use to its conclusion, you're saying that the creators of film, art, etc do not have any exclusive rights to their creations - anyone can just copy them and make money. This is the whole reason copyright exists - to protect the rights of the creator.
I understand if they were selling pictures or screenshots of the movie on a T-shirt, but from the site's blog it seems that they are more "inspired from" a movie. To what level is a thought inspired from a movie and placed on a shirt IP from the movie?
It's called a "Derivative work", and you need permission from the copyright holder.
If I liked "Cars" and I draw a car with a smile on a tee shirt does Disney have rights to my t-shirt If that's the case wasn't there a cartoon car (a dunebuggy I believe) that talked and had animated expressions who's creators should be getting rich right about now.
Lets put it this way: If your car on the T-Shirt looked like the animated car in the movie, and other people thought it was from the movie... you don't have an original work, do you?
Please point out a car in "Cars" that looks just like Speedbuggy, or is an obvious derived work. I'll wait. Oh, and you can't copyright an IDEA, so we're talking about actual depictions.
This isn't rocket science. If you profit (and not just financially) from someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, you're violating copyright. None of these people came up with or created any of the characters.
This is one of several comments that assert that since Universal own the IP and there was no format agreement, then Universal were completely right to c&d and even bill their volunteers. Sad loser geeks eh?
Yes. That is exactly correct.
If you do not have explicit permission from the copyright holder, you are SOL. Ignorance is not an excuse for violating copyright. Thinking you have some implicit right is also not an excuse. That's why there's a law that covers what your rights are and aren't.
While I generally abhore what the RIAA/MPAA are doing these days, and think there are some real problems with copyright laws in the US... this isn't one of those cases.
I really can't understand why they would seek to alienate the fan base this way. If Universal aren't planning on making another movie, then there is no reason that they shouldn't allow the fans they're 'memorabilia'. If they are, why go after the fans who will only be driving more people in to see the sequel?
They're not going after fans. They're going after people stealing their IP for personal profit.
I'm quite sure you can buy your "memorabilia" from them (Universal). You know... the ones who actually own the rights to sell it to you.
Or, you can buy it from someone ripping off the studio and selling it without a license for personal gain. Your Call.
Want to sell the stuff? $9k sounds like a pretty reasonable license fee. I'm quite sure the companies that license IP from other movies/sports/etc pay a LOT more.
Somehow, because they volunteered to promote a movie for little or no compensation, they think they have some right to personally profit from selling merchandise which uses the IP from that movie without getting permission or paying a licensing fee.
This is one of those cases there copyright is working exactly as it is supposed to.
Slashdot Mirror
Please note that I completely understand that this is never going to happen, by the OP has a very good point.
There is no technical issue here, no MSFT software required, etc - you would do it the same way you get a driver's license.
Basically, you would go to your local DBI (Dept. of Broadband Internet), and apply for a "Broadband License". You take a written test for the OS you plan to use, and if you pass, you get a license. The ISP only needs to check your license when you order service.
If this is not enough, then the ISP could monitor its networks (which, in all honestly would be a big step in the right direction *today* as the cable ISPs don't do jack about all the crap coming from their networks), suspend accounts that are hijacked, and assess "points" ala your driver's license.
As mentioned, it's assigning responsibility (which, is another reason this would never fly
Again. Pipe dream. But the concept of licensing isn't that bad of an idea. About 80% of the junk traffic I see hitting our mail machine comes from dynamic DSL and Cable IPs (Which SpamAssassin usually swats away, but that doesn't change the fact).
- Roach
2) What computer were they running Vista on? The Aero UI wasn't running, implying that either they were running it on an old PC, or that the author was so unfamiliar with the OS that he didn't realise!
If you actually read the article, he makes a point of saying he's not running Aero, and why.
- Roach
I can tell you if it weren't for buildout requirements, I wouldn't have phone, garbage or power service.
... are you also complaining that you don't have water and sewer services? Much like water, anyone living in rural areas aleady has a viable alternative for both TV and Internet - Satellite.
When not having internet access or cable TV can cause you to die (Like not having power, or a phone to contact someone in an emergency), come talk to us. I'm glad you have garbage service - where i grew up (rural Ohio), we burned it out back or took it to the dump in our pickup.
Buildout requirements for necessities makes sense. Buildout requirements for your entertainment don't. When you choose to live far away from other people, why should those other people have to foot the bill for non-necessities?
I'm guessing you have a well and septic if you're in a rural area
- Roach
Google is your friend.
http://www.google.com/search?q=passport+faraday+c
- Roach
"but to own and operate the technology to achieve this seems to be no less complex than having a $20 pick-pocket help you get it."
... but considering we have this with the banking systems (for the most part), this is not exactly an impossible task.
Do you travel? I ask because I do, and I would like to see a "$20 pick-pocket" take my passport. I don't exactly carry it where this would be possible. And when I'm not carrying it, it's usually in a hotel safe. I tend to want to be able to get back into my country, so I'm carefull like that.
Putting an RFID chip on it changes this game. Unless I have a cage around it, the inside pocket of my jacket and the hotel safe no longer provide any security for the informaion contained therin.
And the idea that "The information printed on the passport is the same" doesn't really hold water. People doing menial jobs are, generally, lazy/unattentive. For example, my wife and I have credit cards that are the kind with your photograph printed on them. I've tried this a number of times (because I'm silly like that), and it has only failed once - I'll take her card and use it (without her with me or in view). Except for *one* time, I've never had a problem using her card. Nevermind that the picture on it obviously isn't me, the name on the card isn't right, and the signature certainly doesn't match.
The only way this passport RFID thing would work is if they actually came up with a worldwide system and simply encoded an ID number into the passport. You wave your passport in front of the reader, and up on the computer screen pops your picture, info, etc from the database. The passport simply becomes record number, with no actual information on/in it.
Of course, this also assumes a computer/database/network system that can not be hacked
- Roach
And this, ladies and gentlemen (well, gentlemen), is why email hosts have these whitelists and why people use them. "Would you like to not opt-out of our informative and exciting hourly emails?"
Oooh, I just love it when people make stupid assumptions!
Here's the total list of emails sent by our system, to which I was referring:
1) MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) restricted item pricing. This is the biggest. It is sent when a customer requests it to be sent to get pricing on a MAP controlled item to be able to purchase it. If you don't know / understand what this means, look it up. It's a big thing in our industry.
2) Human-written Responses to customer emails (these don't happen at 2am, Obviously. Usually we can hit the challenge response on these)
3) "Your order has shipped" notices.
4) "Your order has been delayed" notices.
5) "Something is on backorder" notices.
And then the earthlink user complains they didn't get the email.
- Roach
Thanks for the info ... I obviously don't use Earthlink so I didn't know the user could still view the email even though the challenge wasn't responded to. I suspect, however, that many people have gotten to the point where they don't bother to even read through that folder You would think they would if they were expecting something, but ... assumptions never seem to work out.
As for the email address, our outgoing address has been the same for years. It never changes (You should see how much junk we get per day).
- Roach
I run an online retail business, and non-tech savy customers using earthlink don't get a lot of our email.
Biggest problem is that Earthlink uses a white-list spam blocking setup that sends back a time-limited challenge to the sender ("Please go to this link and fill in this form so that this user can receive your mail").
We get these challenges when our automated system sends messages to customers
- Roach
And now that I've actually had some coffee
They're breaking rule #1: Never trust the client.
If your QoS network equipment is using these tags instead of actual port numbers, well, it's pretty easy to reconfigure how a client tags its packets.
- Roach
There are large amounts of small companies that probably do not have campus grade layer 2/3 devices that can accomodate QoS or traffic shaping, so adding the functionality at an end-point is honestly a good idea.
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, if you read the article, Vista doesn't provide this. All it does is allow tagging of packets with values that QoS enabled network equipment can use.
FTA: "Vista's ability to use centrally configured group-policies to push out policies to specific users or servers, and allows tagging of packets with the Diffserv code point values, so that our network infrastructure can see the marking and react to it in different ways - whether it's VoIP traffic, or TCP/IP business critical traffic, or web-surfing traffic. (Granted, this QoS doesn't guarantee anything, it just marks the packet in Windows and it is up to your network infrastructure to honor those tags.)"
- Roach
Rather interesting that the quote in the summary here on slashdot skipped this (emphasis mine):
... it really doesn't do much. It may be slightly more convenient to configure QoS on your routers based on the tags rather than port numbers ... but that's about it.
FTFA: "Vista's ability to use centrally configured group-policies to push out policies to specific users or servers, and allows tagging of packets with the Diffserv code point values, so that our network infrastructure can see the marking and react to it in different ways - whether it's VoIP traffic, or TCP/IP business critical traffic, or web-surfing traffic. (Granted, this QoS doesn't guarantee anything, it just marks the packet in Windows and it is up to your network infrastructure to honor those tags.)"
So
- Roach
Ever wonder if this was MS's plan all along? Not to win?
.... so why not toss some serious FUD into the market as long as possible until they could get their new platform to market? Vista comes out, SCO goes down the tubes. It's win-win for MS.
By funding this charade via SCO, they bought themselves time.
Linux had been gaining server market share, and they knew their new product was going to be severely delayed
I'm not usually in the tinfoil fedora (pun somewhat intended)camp but this thought came to mind this morning.
- Roach
Just casually watching the eBay auctions for a few minutes shows that actually getting your money from your auction would be
Basically, there's a bunch of kids (Or just immature adults) that are bidding up every auction to beyond ridiculous. It's the same names over and over, a mixture of new accounts and obviously hijacked ones.
Looking at "completed" auctions, I would say that about 1 out of every 10 has managed to get an actual buyer (slipped by the kids) and even then as a buyer
Basically
- Roach
Right on point one, but are you right on point two? The site was selling a derivative work of the movie Serenity, but from the links in the article and the comments elsewhere in this discussion, there seemed to be an implied permission for the fans to be allowed to self-promote the movie.
:) The simple fact is that if he asked for permission to sell merchandise on the web using their material, the answer would have been no. The jump from "Members were encouraged to form regional groups to promote the film and perform activities that would help generate word of mouth, like creating bumper stickers and gift cards to accompany the DVD release." to "Sell T-Shirts on the internet months later" seems a bit of a stretch to me.
... but some is not all. I haven't seen that they have gone after anyone that was doing the things they told people to do.
They can have a whole boatload of implied permission. They didn't have explicit permission.
Nevermind that in all honesty, I don't see "Hey, you can sell stuff for profit" was what they were implying
While no contract with the groups where signed, it sounds like Universal knew that some forms derivative works or use of Universal's trademarks where going to be used in the form of promoting the movie. So does Universal have a right to demand retroactive license fees, from the members of these groups?
They only demanded the fee if he wished to continue selling merchandise using their copyrighted material, unless I read his blog wrong. As for knowing that some works would be created, that's fine
- Roach
What are you some kind of MPAA shill that must make absurd leaps of logic to make his point?
The point was made in the extreme opposite of the one presented. You said "Fair use", I asked what was fair use about using someone else's work for your own personal gain.
What I SAID was since the copyright owner had been taking advantage of the fanbase to market their IP, some quid pro quo seems perfectly reasonable. While copyright exists to protect the rights of the creator, we as democratic societies also have the rights to limit what those rights are particularly in stupid cases like this. Show me harm to Serenity's sales (which was the original purpose of copyright) and I might start taking you seriously.
How was the fanbase taken advantage of? Did someone promise them something in return and not deliver it? I was under the opinion that this was not the case.
What you find reasonable and what the copyright owner does is obviously not the same. Universal never granted the right to use the copyrighted material or derived works on T-Shirts to these fans, therefore they don't have the right under US copyright law. This makes perfect sense to me.
The fact of the matter is that if the original work (Firefly) didn't exist, then neither would any of this. We wouldn't be having this conversation. This work is based on someone else's work, without permission.
If you disagree with this part of US copyright law, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with you.
- Roach
Blah Blah Blah.
Since you want to nitpick what I wrote literally instead of simply taking it for what it was, let me rewrite it for you:
"He was using their copyrighted material without permission. This is a copyright violation".
You can't create a "Derivative work" without permission (for any reason, not just profit). He did. He did not have explicit permission. They told him to stop. End of Story.
That's the way US copyright law works. Look it up.
- Roach
The link you provide takes you to his store which now only contains non-infringing items - he removed the ones they told him to.
Since I am no laywer and I don't live in the U.S, my own estimate that this is Universal trying to claim ownership of something that they don't own
They own the original work, and any "Derived work". He was selling works wholey derived from their creation without permission. Under US copyright law, he can't do that.
- Roach
People were *NOT* using property owned by Universal. At least in a large degree, if at all.
They were using originally created artwork, granted referencing Serenity/Firefly.
Really? "Originally created", yet it wouldn't exist and no one would buy it unless someone else had made a TV series called "Firefly" and a movie called "Serenity". Interesting concept.
It's called a "Derived Work". And it's a copyright violation unless they received permission from the copyright holder to create it.
If you think that you should be able to profit from others' work and disagree with copyright law, I respect your opinion, I just don't happen to agree with it.
- Roach
Sorry mate, I disagree. You are wrong. You clearly believe in the absolute rights of copyright holders. I believe in fair use and implicit covenants between seller and buyer. But then we in the UK have more of those enshrined in law than you do in the US.
... a copyright, especially when it comes to for-profit endevours.
... what's the fair use in this case? (Seriously). He didn't buy anything from them (except maybe a movie ticket or DVD), and he's selling things wholey based on their creation. If the series/movie didn't exist, neither would these items. He can only sell these things because someone else spent a lot more money and did a lot more work.
Where am I "Wrong"? That's how copyright currently works in the US. You do not have a right to create a "Derivative work" from another. And yes, I do believe that the copyright holder should have
As for "Fair use"
And taking this idea of fair use to its conclusion, you're saying that the creators of film, art, etc do not have any exclusive rights to their creations - anyone can just copy them and make money. This is the whole reason copyright exists - to protect the rights of the creator.
- Roach
Let me change the post so it's literally correct:
They're going after people using their copyrighted material without permission for personal gain, which they are 100% within their rights to do.
- Roach
You're absolutely correct.
Let me change the post so it's literally correct:
They're going after people using their copyrighted material without permission for personal gain, which they are 100% within their rights to do.
- Roach
I understand if they were selling pictures or screenshots of the movie on a T-shirt, but from the site's blog it seems that they are more "inspired from" a movie. To what level is a thought inspired from a movie and placed on a shirt IP from the movie?
... you don't have an original work, do you?
It's called a "Derivative work", and you need permission from the copyright holder.
If I liked "Cars" and I draw a car with a smile on a tee shirt does Disney have rights to my t-shirt If that's the case wasn't there a cartoon car (a dunebuggy I believe) that talked and had animated expressions who's creators should be getting rich right about now.
Lets put it this way: If your car on the T-Shirt looked like the animated car in the movie, and other people thought it was from the movie
Please point out a car in "Cars" that looks just like Speedbuggy, or is an obvious derived work. I'll wait. Oh, and you can't copyright an IDEA, so we're talking about actual depictions.
This isn't rocket science. If you profit (and not just financially) from someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, you're violating copyright. None of these people came up with or created any of the characters.
- Roach
This is one of several comments that assert that since Universal own the IP and there was no format agreement, then Universal were completely right to c&d and even bill their volunteers. Sad loser geeks eh?
... this isn't one of those cases.
Yes. That is exactly correct.
If you do not have explicit permission from the copyright holder, you are SOL. Ignorance is not an excuse for violating copyright. Thinking you have some implicit right is also not an excuse. That's why there's a law that covers what your rights are and aren't.
While I generally abhore what the RIAA/MPAA are doing these days, and think there are some real problems with copyright laws in the US
- Roach
I really can't understand why they would seek to alienate the fan base this way.
... the ones who actually own the rights to sell it to you.
If Universal aren't planning on making another movie, then there is no reason that they shouldn't allow the fans they're 'memorabilia'.
If they are, why go after the fans who will only be driving more people in to see the sequel?
They're not going after fans. They're going after people stealing their IP for personal profit.
I'm quite sure you can buy your "memorabilia" from them (Universal). You know
Or, you can buy it from someone ripping off the studio and selling it without a license for personal gain. Your Call.
Want to sell the stuff? $9k sounds like a pretty reasonable license fee. I'm quite sure the companies that license IP from other movies/sports/etc pay a LOT more.
- Roach
Sorry, but that seems to be the sad truth.
Somehow, because they volunteered to promote a movie for little or no compensation, they think they have some right to personally profit from selling merchandise which uses the IP from that movie without getting permission or paying a licensing fee.
This is one of those cases there copyright is working exactly as it is supposed to.
- Roach