In many states, there is a legal and/or partisan mechanism in place which would make it impossible for an elector to vote for someone other than who won the popular vote in that state.
Not saying it coudn't happen. but it is very unliekly.
I dislike the electoral college on other grounds. For example, traditionaly there has been a "winner takes all" system. I think 48 states have a "winner takes all". I think this is much more anti-democratic than an electoral college.
>Ehh, a derivative WORK (there is no such thing as derivative use) requires that you create a new work >derived of some other.
You are right, sloppy language use on my part. I meant - in my head - "the use of a derivitaive work" and it came out derivitive use. You are right, though.
> Which such work are you claiming is created here?
I know you know this, but for other's benefit: 17 USC 106 defines a derivative work as "a work based on one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."
What I am claiming is that the gold-selling sites, which use many Vivendi copyrights, are in fact a derivitive work of Vivendi's existing copyrights. This is an argument that would have to be made piece by piece, of course, and perhaps would be a case of first impression. I dont have a westlaw account at the moment ot research caselaw. But, the one huge exception to tihs, satire, does not seem available. (Not touching fir use at the moment.)
>In addition, there is no problem in creating any such work, . . .
I would think the work would be World of Warcraft, in its entirety, which is certainly copyrighted. Obviously its building blocks, orcs, swords, mountains, are not copyrighted, but the compilation is.
>So? Since when was that illegal, especially from a copyright point of view?
sorry, I meant trademark law.
>And that makes it a copyright issue how??
Vivendi might want to sue them, but lacks a court with jurisdiction to do so.
tto answer just a tiny point you make about copyrights . . . I could see copyright infringement in this case under the theory of derivitive works infringement -that is the selling of gold on the internet under the WOW copyright could be a legitimate derivitive use of copyrights that Vivendi owns.
I could go into more detail of you are interested.
Also, A weaker claim could be made by Vivendi that hte gold-sellers are "devaluing" the WOW copyright through selling gold . . .
An additional consideration is that many of these companies do not exist within the jusrisdiciton of US courts . . .
Slashdot Mirror
In many states, there is a legal and/or partisan mechanism in place which would make it impossible for an elector to vote for someone other than who won the popular vote in that state. Not saying it coudn't happen. but it is very unliekly. I dislike the electoral college on other grounds. For example, traditionaly there has been a "winner takes all" system. I think 48 states have a "winner takes all". I think this is much more anti-democratic than an electoral college.
Thanks for the reply. I think I pretty much agree with what you have to say.
>Ehh, a derivative WORK (there is no such thing as derivative use) requires that you create a new work >derived of some other.
You are right, sloppy language use on my part. I meant - in my head - "the use of a derivitaive work" and it came out derivitive use. You are right, though.
> Which such work are you claiming is created here?I know you know this, but for other's benefit: 17 USC 106 defines a derivative work as "a work based on one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."
What I am claiming is that the gold-selling sites, which use many Vivendi copyrights, are in fact a derivitive work of Vivendi's existing copyrights. This is an argument that would have to be made piece by piece, of course, and perhaps would be a case of first impression. I dont have a westlaw account at the moment ot research caselaw. But, the one huge exception to tihs, satire, does not seem available. (Not touching fir use at the moment.)
>In addition, there is no problem in creating any such work, . . .
I would think the work would be World of Warcraft, in its entirety, which is certainly copyrighted. Obviously its building blocks, orcs, swords, mountains, are not copyrighted, but the compilation is.
>So? Since when was that illegal, especially from a copyright point of view?
sorry, I meant trademark law.
>And that makes it a copyright issue how??
Vivendi might want to sue them, but lacks a court with jurisdiction to do so.
IP are copyrights, trademarks and patents. that is all. Gold is not IP and the rules of property law do not apply.
tto answer just a tiny point you make about copyrights . . . I could see copyright infringement in this case under the theory of derivitive works infringement -that is the selling of gold on the internet under the WOW copyright could be a legitimate derivitive use of copyrights that Vivendi owns. I could go into more detail of you are interested. Also, A weaker claim could be made by Vivendi that hte gold-sellers are "devaluing" the WOW copyright through selling gold . . . An additional consideration is that many of these companies do not exist within the jusrisdiciton of US courts . . .