"Usually none. If the police execute a search and seizer, it is under the color of their official duty. To be held liable, it has to be shown as a clear abuse, not just a major screw-up."
Still, it can't be a good point for the plaintiff.
"Your honor, we stand before you with our dicks in our hands, since we found no evidence. We move for a change of venue."
"It may just be me, but once you Buy something you ought to be able to do with it as you wish."
You can. What you do with your XBox in the privacy of your home is nobody's business but your own, and the law is fully on your side. What is it that you believe you are prevented from doing?
As you surely know, the old-school technique of mounting the lensboard backwards on a Speed Graphic is still one of the best approaches to a serious effort of high-quality macro/closeup photography.
Somewhere among my old stuff, I've got a bellows that fits Nikon F body. (Can your Pringles can do perspective correction?)
"Because they are discouraging you from buying something that would net them the most profit, which means they are looking out for you."
One of them was trying to sell me a prior-year product rather than deal with having to order something new. I'm sure they would have made much more profit on a clearance item with some accessories, than having to special order something else, which of course, took away their one big benefit over mail order -- the ability to put the product in my hand as I walk in the door...
If you've ever operated a Canon "D" model side-by-side with a "Rebel" you'd probably quickly see why you'd want the "D".
"Having too many features can be a negative as well."
There's not a feature that I haven't put to use. I'm not sure where this idea is coming from, but it's a dangerous assumption.
When I was shopping for my EOS 20D, I purposely visited a couple of local camera stores before ordering from B&H. I was shocked by the performance of the local stores! One basically refused to show me a 20D, and tried to insist that I'd be happier with a Rebel XT. The people in the other store were quite insulting, and also tried to discourage me from getting a 20D, purely on the basis of my not being a professional photographer -- there was enough of the little sneer in the guy's voice, worthy of a cartoon character. I tried to stick around for a while, but even though there were no other customers, I had an extremely hard time getting anyone to talk to me. These weren't high-school kids in a storefront, mind you.
So I decided I was on a wild goose chase, ordered my camera and other gear from B&H and never looked back. I had about $3000 to spend on camera gear, and all I needed from the local store was basic respect. Anyway, B&H filled my order faster than either of the local stores would have done. And I'm quite happy with the camera, no regrets at all. And I haven't been to any locally owned camera stores since (!!)
The stores could do more to combat online fraud, but the manufacturers, particularly their marketing organizations, could do *much* more. For the resellers that get so many reports of the fraudulent unbundling of lenses, batteries, power supplies, manuals, and so on, Canon and Nikon could order them to stop using their trademarks. Why don't the manufacturers get involved where they should?
>An NC-17 rating means you won't make shit at the box office.
Only if you were originally headed for the mainstream box office in the first place, which this type of film is clearly not. All over liberal-land, there are independent theatres that run what they damned well please. Since they aren't in bed with any of the big syndicates, they don't have to follow any rules aside from the laws of their community. (Film ratings are not law, contrary to popular belief.)
The film in the article was never headed for mainstream multiplex cinemas in suburban malls to begin with. The filmmakers were creating a controversial film and knew it. An NC17 rating just builds more controversy, and lots of people will hear about it as a result. It won't "keep it out" of the repertory houses. The Loft Cinema in Tucson will probably run it, and I'd expect it to run at places like the Bijou on the Oregon Coast, or at the Inwood in Dallas, there's a ton of places like that, that always run stuff the big chains don't, whether because of controversy or because whatever mainstream audiences hate or fail to understand. (Consider anything by Peter Greenaway... never saw any of his films on the marqee at a mall, but he still had pretty good distribution!)
The filmmakers aren't upset. They probably don't even care. I expect they think of themselves more as operating outside the machine that includes Hollywood, Awards, and mainstream distribution, and are even proud of that.
The people who made this film *want* controversy. The theatres that would not run it because of the rating, weren't going to be the market in the first place. Think the filmmakers know that? Getting an NC17 rating, and especially being able to spin it as political, will create more buzz and get more people into the theatres where this type of thing is typically screened, independent repertory houses, not the Century Multiplex at the mall!
"Moore is not making documentaries, he's making editorial movies. And they were certainly right."
The distinction is arbitrary. All documentaries have "editorial" direction. Whether the movie is about surfing or wild birds, it will be full of opinion and various amounts of persuasive effort.
"And the agents of the MPA are presumabley, agents of the songwriters. And they are requesting that their works be taken down."
Exactly. What I take from this, as a musician and songwriter, is that whatever power and authority is given to agents, is, by equal protection doctrine, also given to me.
"Instead of using your name, they put their company info in the whois of your domain."
And when the name is disputed, do you have any control? Or when someone calls up the administrative contact and makes a cash offer, are you notified of the sale?
>Well, it's not a felony or a misdeameanor, but it *is* illegal.
Maybe among armchair IANAL's, but you'd have a very hard time making the case that the retailer is liable in this instance. On one hand, he may be distributing matierial without a license to do so. On the other hand, you cannot simply shut down the business because you believe you've been damaged. File a motion for a TRO, if you're the copyright holder and you have evidence that your rights are being abridged.
Civil liability is a strange machine, compared to criminal law. It is stupendously difficult to persuade a party to take action, if they ignore things like polite requests and C&D letters. You, the copyright holder, have the right for your distribution rights not to be abridged. They, the retailer, have rights that protect them from being forced to comply with arbitrary demands from all comers.
So, yes, it may be illegal, but the retailer does not have to take any action until so ordered. A C&D letter is not an order, it's an impolite request.
Special case, I realize, but I would really like a touchscreen on my (music) keyboard rig. Unfortunately, I know the touchscreen idiom as implemented, only allows for a single touchpoint at a time. So UI ideas like "grabbing a row of faders" or "tweaking multiple knobs with the side of your palm", or "piano keyboard" are not available anyway.
In the liberal humanitarian paridise that is Canada, Corporations are not "people", it is possible to take a corporation to court and not be bankrupted by the effort, rebates are paid back, and they have something called "Boxing Day."
Well.... In Thailand, they routinely deal with Australian, European, and American tourists and businesspeople who speak English, and rarely deal with Romans who speak Latin. So it does make sense that the common vernacular would indicate the "English" alphabet. Thailand was beyond the reach of the Roman Empire... among the few places that can make that claim:-)
The difference between a cease and desist letter from a lawyer, and a not nice letter from some random asshole, is... nothing. There is no difference. A C&D "order" carries absolutely no special weight as evidence. To even be admitted as evidence, the claim of the order must be determined to have some merit on its face.
You're right though, it's only the affected individual's choice to make. I hope I didn't come across as implying what the A.org people should have done.
Their real problem lies in the fact that the whole open trading policy has always been implicit, with few explicit grants ever having been issued. So they are in a copyright gray area.
I suspect that the outcome of this, will be an angry Phil Lesh, maybe together with John Barlow and Robert Hunter, pulling some strings and making trouble in an amusing way for the Debra people.
The article suggests that all this has been at the hand of Weir, Hart, and Kreutzmann, but I don't think I buy that. I think it's much more likely that those guys have a minority stake on the board of the corporation that controls Garcia's interests, which has been controlled by Debra Koons Garcia since Jerry's will was executed. Because they are execs on the board, they can be construed to have been part of a consensus decision, but notice that none of them are quoted here. It's much more likely that the band members deferred, but then, I'll believe it more if I see direct quotes from them, Hart especially, since he's historically been one of the main proponents of open distribution of the material.
Barlow, Hunter, and Lesh, together, reserve enough rights on enough of the matierial to make it impossible for the vestigial "Grateful Dead Productions, Inc." to distribute anything that doesn't already have contracts with Warner, etc. Lesh and Hunter, if they were serious, could say "no publications of any of the songs we wrote after we got smart enough to reserve the rights" -- which they did, getting wise much earlier than most bands of the era. So Debra could end up with nothing of value.
I think the whole thing is funny, since the cat's out of the bag -- there's no possible way she could control or stop the trading of this material, archive.org or no archive.org.
On a positive note, the shows they play as "The Dead" are really great. I saw one night at St. Helens and the venue, the crowd, and the vibe were all very much like a mid-1970s show would have been. It was really a nice experience after living through the insanity that was the 90s. Casual vibe, open air, without all the security people, with no shortage of tickets, it really was fun.
Keep in mind, one of the big reasons they changed the name of the band was so that they could play without being under the umbrella of the corporation that was being controlled by the angry and litigious Debra Koons Garcia. This is hardly the first offensive legal stunt she's pulled. The guys in the band know the score. This will end with Debra owning a trademark and no product.
One thing that surprised me was the way the Archive.org material tended to supersede other sources of the same shows, leading to an unfortunate monoculture. It's maybe subjective, for the most part, but if a show was found on Archive.org, it tended to be the only version of that show, even though 200 different masters are out there.
This is a dimension that collectors understand, and the reason hand-to-hand trading is still an important part of the scene. For those who don't understand being a Deadhead, it's like trying to understand why someone is a baseball fan if they don't understand being a baseball fan. And trading Grateful Dead concert tapes is like trading baseball cards. Also, very difficult to understand the specific motivations, without being into it yourself.
Archive.org did a good thing by making it easy to get some of the material, but it also did a disservice to the community by diluting the pool, and steering it toward monoculture.
Slashdot Mirror
"Usually none. If the police execute a search and seizer, it is under the color of their official duty. To be held liable, it has to be shown as a clear abuse, not just a major screw-up."
Still, it can't be a good point for the plaintiff.
"Your honor, we stand before you with our dicks in our hands, since we found no evidence. We move for a change of venue."
"It may just be me, but once you Buy something you ought to be able to do with it as you wish."
You can. What you do with your XBox in the privacy of your home is nobody's business but your own, and the law is fully on your side. What is it that you believe you are prevented from doing?
>The retail version that you find at your local game store is sold at a loss
That idea has LONG legs, but it seems to originate from a fairly biased source.
"It does not have to. Remember, there are statutory damages on copyright infringement."
And what kind of damage do you expose yourself to when you execute the motions to do a search and seizure, and no evidence is found?
>Why try to belittle people?
Isn't it *asking* to be belittled when you post on a sysadmin topic about a root fuckup on a production server?
>[$researchgroupserver]: kill 1 enter
>Crap!
1. Shame on you for routinely running as root.
2. What does that do, other than tickle init ?
Get a picture up there without involving the organizers...
As you surely know, the old-school technique of mounting the lensboard backwards on a Speed Graphic is still one of the best approaches to a serious effort of high-quality macro/closeup photography.
Somewhere among my old stuff, I've got a bellows that fits Nikon F body. (Can your Pringles can do perspective correction?)
"It would be similar to an 80 year old grandma wanting to buy a Ferrari Enzo for weekend grocery shopping."
I think I should be insulted by what you're trying to imply here.
I don't come across as feeble minded or as unable to appreciate or exploit the benefits of a better-engineered tool, do I?
"Because they are discouraging you from buying something that would net them the most profit, which means they are looking out for you."
One of them was trying to sell me a prior-year product rather than deal with having to order something new. I'm sure they would have made much more profit on a clearance item with some accessories, than having to special order something else, which of course, took away their one big benefit over mail order -- the ability to put the product in my hand as I walk in the door...
If you've ever operated a Canon "D" model side-by-side with a "Rebel" you'd probably quickly see why you'd want the "D".
"Having too many features can be a negative as well."
There's not a feature that I haven't put to use. I'm not sure where this idea is coming from, but it's a dangerous assumption.
When I was shopping for my EOS 20D, I purposely visited a couple of local camera stores before ordering from B&H. I was shocked by the performance of the local stores! One basically refused to show me a 20D, and tried to insist that I'd be happier with a Rebel XT. The people in the other store were quite insulting, and also tried to discourage me from getting a 20D, purely on the basis of my not being a professional photographer -- there was enough of the little sneer in the guy's voice, worthy of a cartoon character. I tried to stick around for a while, but even though there were no other customers, I had an extremely hard time getting anyone to talk to me. These weren't high-school kids in a storefront, mind you.
So I decided I was on a wild goose chase, ordered my camera and other gear from B&H and never looked back. I had about $3000 to spend on camera gear, and all I needed from the local store was basic respect. Anyway, B&H filled my order faster than either of the local stores would have done. And I'm quite happy with the camera, no regrets at all. And I haven't been to any locally owned camera stores since (!!)
The stores could do more to combat online fraud, but the manufacturers, particularly their marketing organizations, could do *much* more. For the resellers that get so many reports of the fraudulent unbundling of lenses, batteries, power supplies, manuals, and so on, Canon and Nikon could order them to stop using their trademarks. Why don't the manufacturers get involved where they should?
>An NC-17 rating means you won't make shit at the box office.
Only if you were originally headed for the mainstream box office in the first place, which this type of film is clearly not. All over liberal-land, there are independent theatres that run what they damned well please. Since they aren't in bed with any of the big syndicates, they don't have to follow any rules aside from the laws of their community. (Film ratings are not law, contrary to popular belief.)
The film in the article was never headed for mainstream multiplex cinemas in suburban malls to begin with. The filmmakers were creating a controversial film and knew it. An NC17 rating just builds more controversy, and lots of people will hear about it as a result. It won't "keep it out" of the repertory houses. The Loft Cinema in Tucson will probably run it, and I'd expect it to run at places like the Bijou on the Oregon Coast, or at the Inwood in Dallas, there's a ton of places like that, that always run stuff the big chains don't, whether because of controversy or because whatever mainstream audiences hate or fail to understand. (Consider anything by Peter Greenaway... never saw any of his films on the marqee at a mall, but he still had pretty good distribution!)
The filmmakers aren't upset. They probably don't even care. I expect they think of themselves more as operating outside the machine that includes Hollywood, Awards, and mainstream distribution, and are even proud of that.
The people who made this film *want* controversy. The theatres that would not run it because of the rating, weren't going to be the market in the first place. Think the filmmakers know that? Getting an NC17 rating, and especially being able to spin it as political, will create more buzz and get more people into the theatres where this type of thing is typically screened, independent repertory houses, not the Century Multiplex at the mall!
"Moore is not making documentaries, he's making editorial movies. And they were certainly right."
The distinction is arbitrary. All documentaries have "editorial" direction. Whether the movie is about surfing or wild birds, it will be full of opinion and various amounts of persuasive effort.
"And the agents of the MPA are presumabley, agents of the songwriters. And they are requesting that their works be taken down."
Exactly. What I take from this, as a musician and songwriter, is that whatever power and authority is given to agents, is, by equal protection doctrine, also given to me.
"Instead of using your name, they put their company info in the whois of your domain."
And when the name is disputed, do you have any control? Or when someone calls up the administrative contact and makes a cash offer, are you notified of the sale?
>Well, it's not a felony or a misdeameanor, but it *is* illegal.
Maybe among armchair IANAL's, but you'd have a very hard time making the case that the retailer is liable in this instance. On one hand, he may be distributing matierial without a license to do so. On the other hand, you cannot simply shut down the business because you believe you've been damaged. File a motion for a TRO, if you're the copyright holder and you have evidence that your rights are being abridged.
Civil liability is a strange machine, compared to criminal law. It is stupendously difficult to persuade a party to take action, if they ignore things like polite requests and C&D letters. You, the copyright holder, have the right for your distribution rights not to be abridged. They, the retailer, have rights that protect them from being forced to comply with arbitrary demands from all comers.
So, yes, it may be illegal, but the retailer does not have to take any action until so ordered. A C&D letter is not an order, it's an impolite request.
>Therefore it is illegal for it to be sold.
More realistically, it's potentially a civil infraction for which damages could be sought. It's not "illegal" until a court order is issued.
Special case, I realize, but I would really like a touchscreen on my (music) keyboard rig. Unfortunately, I know the touchscreen idiom as implemented, only allows for a single touchpoint at a time. So UI ideas like "grabbing a row of faders" or "tweaking multiple knobs with the side of your palm", or "piano keyboard" are not available anyway.
>This is a recall?
I missed the part where it became illegal for a retailer to sell the product.
>So it can go both ways.
In the liberal humanitarian paridise that is Canada, Corporations are not "people", it is possible to take a corporation to court and not be bankrupted by the effort, rebates are paid back, and they have something called "Boxing Day."
Well.... In Thailand, they routinely deal with Australian, European, and American tourists and businesspeople who speak English, and rarely deal with Romans who speak Latin. So it does make sense that the common vernacular would indicate the "English" alphabet. Thailand was beyond the reach of the Roman Empire... among the few places that can make that claim :-)
The difference between a cease and desist letter from a lawyer, and a not nice letter from some random asshole, is... nothing. There is no difference. A C&D "order" carries absolutely no special weight as evidence. To even be admitted as evidence, the claim of the order must be determined to have some merit on its face.
You're right though, it's only the affected individual's choice to make. I hope I didn't come across as implying what the A.org people should have done.
Their real problem lies in the fact that the whole open trading policy has always been implicit, with few explicit grants ever having been issued. So they are in a copyright gray area.
I suspect that the outcome of this, will be an angry Phil Lesh, maybe together with John Barlow and Robert Hunter, pulling some strings and making trouble in an amusing way for the Debra people.
The article suggests that all this has been at the hand of Weir, Hart, and Kreutzmann, but I don't think I buy that. I think it's much more likely that those guys have a minority stake on the board of the corporation that controls Garcia's interests, which has been controlled by Debra Koons Garcia since Jerry's will was executed. Because they are execs on the board, they can be construed to have been part of a consensus decision, but notice that none of them are quoted here. It's much more likely that the band members deferred, but then, I'll believe it more if I see direct quotes from them, Hart especially, since he's historically been one of the main proponents of open distribution of the material.
Barlow, Hunter, and Lesh, together, reserve enough rights on enough of the matierial to make it impossible for the vestigial "Grateful Dead Productions, Inc." to distribute anything that doesn't already have contracts with Warner, etc. Lesh and Hunter, if they were serious, could say "no publications of any of the songs we wrote after we got smart enough to reserve the rights" -- which they did, getting wise much earlier than most bands of the era. So Debra could end up with nothing of value.
I think the whole thing is funny, since the cat's out of the bag -- there's no possible way she could control or stop the trading of this material, archive.org or no archive.org.
On a positive note, the shows they play as "The Dead" are really great. I saw one night at St. Helens and the venue, the crowd, and the vibe were all very much like a mid-1970s show would have been. It was really a nice experience after living through the insanity that was the 90s. Casual vibe, open air, without all the security people, with no shortage of tickets, it really was fun.
Keep in mind, one of the big reasons they changed the name of the band was so that they could play without being under the umbrella of the corporation that was being controlled by the angry and litigious Debra Koons Garcia. This is hardly the first offensive legal stunt she's pulled. The guys in the band know the score. This will end with Debra owning a trademark and no product.
One thing that surprised me was the way the Archive.org material tended to supersede other sources of the same shows, leading to an unfortunate monoculture. It's maybe subjective, for the most part, but if a show was found on Archive.org, it tended to be the only version of that show, even though 200 different masters are out there.
This is a dimension that collectors understand, and the reason hand-to-hand trading is still an important part of the scene. For those who don't understand being a Deadhead, it's like trying to understand why someone is a baseball fan if they don't understand being a baseball fan. And trading Grateful Dead concert tapes is like trading baseball cards. Also, very difficult to understand the specific motivations, without being into it yourself.
Archive.org did a good thing by making it easy to get some of the material, but it also did a disservice to the community by diluting the pool, and steering it toward monoculture.