Without all the facts, I cannot be sure; but Amazon seems to be squarely covered by 47 USC 230 and has been covered in the past.
"[P]laintiffs continue to bring these meritless cases that have no chance under 47 USC 230." from here.
I acknowledge all the above posters who say that Mark Cuban is an idiot 'cause he ignored statutory damages.
However, has this argument ever had merit? I skimmed all the UMG v. MP3.com opinions; I imagine the argument (that the actual damages are far lower than the statutory damages) would have been made there.
Anybody have something relatively definitive that I could read about this actual v. statutory damages for copyright conudrum. (diligent google searches and not-so-diligent Lexis searchs haven't yielded anything)
I agree. It seems like every other video game after SMB 3 lacks the "heart" SMB 3 had.
Do you remember the hype around SMB 3? (or the coolest movie of all time -- The Wizard?!)
I still get excited when I think about seeing SMB 3 for the first time!!!
Didn't Spot #3 seem more kid friendly? It just didn't seem as 'dark' as the first two. I am not exactly sure on the particulars, but it seemed like their was a different 'annoucer' or he spoke differently and maybe the music was more 'uplifting?"
Is this general practice for movies? Release specially tailored trailers to specific audiences and channels?
cpt_kangarooski -- You are right, but I am not wrong. I stated that ripping, etc. "was found to fit within the purpose of the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act)[.]" I was referring to the space-shift section of the case (180 F.3d 1072, 1079) that you referenced where this quote is found "In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the faciliation of personal use."
I did not say in my previous statement that those acts fell under the AHRA; I merely said that that fitted within the purpose of the AHRA.
The court did say this in dicta -- but this was my reasoning of the comment. The RIAA knows where the 9th cir. is going to stand if they try to sue "Joe iPodder."
They haven't gone after the rippers and ipodders because of the Diamond Rio case (Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 [9th Cir. 1999]). The specific facts elude me, but the main gist is that ripping for the purpose of playing the music on a computer or using the music on an mp3 player was found to fit within the purpose of the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act).
So, this is probably the primary reason they people haven't gotten drilled.
Fair use isn't a statutorily defined right. It is a limitation on a copyright holder's rights. [17 USC 107 -- read the statute./ers]
(yeah, I know I replied to a 'funny' comment with some seriousness -- my bad. )
This comment if just an FYI to everyone who feels that Fair Use ranks right up there with Privacy -- opps, wait a minute, Privacy isn't expressly listed in the Constitution either. Ok, maybe I should have used 'Free Speech' as a sarcastic comparison. My overall point is that far too many people get far too excited when it comes to talking about protecting Fair Use, and calling Fair Use a right is one of those 'thangs.
"In fact[,] the[y] are entirely designed for that reason"
Oh, you mean TMs weren't created to protect the producer! Believe it or not, there are many reasons for TM protection.
"using the mark as a trade mark"
Frankly, I not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that you have to be selling or trading something with the TM to be infringing? What if I gave away a thousand cans of my own soda with the word "Coca Cola" written on the side -- is that OK?! I think you are getting confused with descriptive fair use, which you describe in your last statement.
Unless Centos's use of the words "Red Hat" was clearly a descriptive fair use (like you mentioned "RedHat-based Centos"), then they are probably infringing and/or diluting the "Red Hat" TM.
"[T]rademark registration only stops others from using the mark as a trade mark" -- Wrong! An entity can stop another entity from any use of their TM that causes a "likelihood of confusion" among consumers. Also, an entity can stop other commercial entities from using the mark if it is actually diluting their registered TM.
"It is perfectly acceptable to even change the main trading name of Centos to "RedHat-based Centos" as this is descriptive; they would not be claiming when selling the product that it is RedHat, but just Redhat-based." -- Probably, that's a good call!
RH is merely protecting its TM and this is in the interest of everybody.
Of course, RH is "here for the money," but that is not exactly why they are enforcing their TM rights.
Generally, if one does not protect their TM, they will lose their TM rights. That is all RH is doing. If they didn't at least try to protect their "Red Hat," then they would lose their rights to "Red Hat."
TM protection is generally a good thing for users!! TMs are partially desiged to protect consumer confusion. Wouldn't the world suck if RH was no longer a TM and all sorts of jackasses came out with Red Hat named distros.
If any other company was getting drilled for shady business practices,./ readers would be jumping at the chance to join the class action to collect. Unfortunately,./ readers think anything against a pro-OSS company is evil.
WAKE UP -- mistating finacial earnings of a publicly traded company is not cool!!
So, the thought is "to reduce fatigue-related accidents by encouraging drivers to stop more often."
How much do you want to bet that these hotspots will increase accidents caused by "trying to check my email while driving 75 mph through a 12 second ( [.25 mile/75 mph] x [3600 sec/1 hour]) hotspot."
I cannot explicitly cite anything in particular -- but it is the little absurdities that keep me off of Windows. For instance, have you ever clicked "Ok" and had the window stay open. And then clicked it again, and then again, and then again, and then again and then again and then again and then again and then again and then again and then again (and then finally yank the damn power cord from wall in a violent rage)
I cannot explicitly cite anything in particular -- but it is the little absurdidies that keep me off of windows. For instance, have you ever clicked "Ok" and had the window stay open. And then clicked it
again, and then again, and then again, and then again (and then
Slashdot Mirror
Until Opera Mini supports proxies (for T-mobile), it sucks.
Without all the facts, I cannot be sure; but Amazon seems to be squarely covered by 47 USC 230 and has been covered in the past. "[P]laintiffs continue to bring these meritless cases that have no chance under 47 USC 230." from here.
here.
I acknowledge all the above posters who say that Mark Cuban is an idiot 'cause he ignored statutory damages.
However, has this argument ever had merit? I skimmed all the UMG v. MP3.com opinions; I imagine the argument (that the actual damages are far lower than the statutory damages) would have been made there.
Anybody have something relatively definitive that I could read about this actual v. statutory damages for copyright conudrum. (diligent google searches and not-so-diligent Lexis searchs haven't yielded anything)
I agree. It seems like every other video game after SMB 3 lacks the "heart" SMB 3 had. Do you remember the hype around SMB 3? (or the coolest movie of all time -- The Wizard?!) I still get excited when I think about seeing SMB 3 for the first time!!!
aahh, Lexmark lost, dewd.
dewd, i quoted this on my blog --> fscklaw.com. seriously, hilarious!
Off topic and out of place --
./ 'bout fair use and the Rio case.
I often read your posts after we argued through
Anyways, I'm finishing my second year at law school and am struggling to find summer employment.
Need a clerk?
Didn't Spot #3 seem more kid friendly? It just didn't seem as 'dark' as the first two. I am not exactly sure on the particulars, but it seemed like their was a different 'annoucer' or he spoke differently and maybe the music was more 'uplifting?"
Is this general practice for movies? Release specially tailored trailers to specific audiences and channels?
cpt_kangarooski -- You are right, but I am not wrong. I stated that ripping, etc. "was found to fit within the purpose of the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act)[.]" I was referring to the space-shift section of the case (180 F.3d 1072, 1079) that you referenced where this quote is found "In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the faciliation of personal use."
I did not say in my previous statement that those acts fell under the AHRA; I merely said that that fitted within the purpose of the AHRA.
The court did say this in dicta -- but this was my reasoning of the comment. The RIAA knows where the 9th cir. is going to stand if they try to sue "Joe iPodder."
They haven't gone after the rippers and ipodders because of the Diamond Rio case (Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 [9th Cir. 1999]). The specific facts elude me, but the main gist is that ripping for the purpose of playing the music on a computer or using the music on an mp3 player was found to fit within the purpose of the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act).
So, this is probably the primary reason they people haven't gotten drilled.
I agree ideologically with your premise; however, the black letter of copyright uses the words "exclusive rights[.]"
Fair use isn't a statutorily defined right. It is a limitation on a copyright holder's rights. [17 USC 107 -- read the statute ./ers]
(yeah, I know I replied to a 'funny' comment with some seriousness -- my bad. )
This comment if just an FYI to everyone who feels that Fair Use ranks right up there with Privacy -- opps, wait a minute, Privacy isn't expressly listed in the Constitution either. Ok, maybe I should have used 'Free Speech' as a sarcastic comparison. My overall point is that far too many people get far too excited when it comes to talking about protecting Fair Use, and calling Fair Use a right is one of those 'thangs.
X-Wing
definitely, an X-Wing!!
how much fun can a 777 be when compared to an X-Wing?
"In fact[,] the[y] are entirely designed for that reason"
Oh, you mean TMs weren't created to protect the producer! Believe it or not, there are many reasons for TM protection.
"using the mark as a trade mark"
Frankly, I not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that you have to be selling or trading something with the TM to be infringing? What if I gave away a thousand cans of my own soda with the word "Coca Cola" written on the side -- is that OK?! I think you are getting confused with descriptive fair use, which you describe in your last statement.
Unless Centos's use of the words "Red Hat" was clearly a descriptive fair use (like you mentioned "RedHat-based Centos"), then they are probably infringing and/or diluting the "Red Hat" TM.
"[T]rademark registration only stops others from using the mark as a trade mark" -- Wrong! An entity can stop another entity from any use of their TM that causes a "likelihood of confusion" among consumers. Also, an entity can stop other commercial entities from using the mark if it is actually diluting their registered TM.
"It is perfectly acceptable to even change the main trading name of Centos to "RedHat-based Centos" as this is descriptive; they would not be claiming when selling the product that it is RedHat, but just Redhat-based." -- Probably, that's a good call!
RH is merely protecting its TM and this is in the interest of everybody.
If you are an advocate of intellectual property rights, then you shouldn't disagree with this.
RH will lose their TM rights if they don't try to protect them!!! (it's the law)
This is not RH throwing its weight around -- this is simple legal logic!!!
Of course, RH is "here for the money," but that is not exactly why they are enforcing their TM rights.
Generally, if one does not protect their TM, they will lose their TM rights. That is all RH is doing. If they didn't at least try to protect their "Red Hat," then they would lose their rights to "Red Hat."
TM protection is generally a good thing for users!! TMs are partially desiged to protect consumer confusion. Wouldn't the world suck if RH was no longer a TM and all sorts of jackasses came out with Red Hat named distros.
"What, therefore, stops them[?]"
Licensing -- owning a DVD doesn't mean you can distribute the content on the DVD.
And, of course, the DMCA.
No doubt. The Zahn triology is clearly head and shoulders above anything else written in the Star Wars realm.
Lucas had better base the movies from it; or else I AM GONNA . . . .
pay the 12 bucks to watch just like everyone else.
(wimpering sound)
Circumference at the Equator == 24,901.55 miles
Mach 10 =~= 7,200 miles/hour (at sea level)
Gives 3.46 Hours!! Hot damn!! (i think i approached that speed once while running away fromt the cops through a corn field)
If any other company was getting drilled for shady business practices, ./ readers would be jumping at the chance to join the class action to collect. Unfortunately, ./ readers think anything against a pro-OSS company is evil.
WAKE UP -- mistating finacial earnings of a publicly traded company is not cool!!
So, the thought is "to reduce fatigue-related accidents by encouraging drivers to stop more often." How much do you want to bet that these hotspots will increase accidents caused by "trying to check my email while driving 75 mph through a 12 second ( [.25 mile/75 mph] x [3600 sec/1 hour]) hotspot."
I cannot explicitly cite anything in particular -- but it is the little absurdities that keep me off of Windows. For instance, have you ever clicked "Ok" and had the window stay open. And then clicked it again,
and then again,
and then again,
and then again
and then again
and then again
and then again
and then again
and then again
and then again
(and then finally yank the damn power cord from wall in a violent rage)
again, and then again, and then again, and then again (and then