Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law (Read 58728 times)

Brentai · « **Reply #420 on:** January 30, 2012, 08:26:19 PM »

The most important thing is kind of buried in the fine print of that manifesto. If you want to send a real message, don't pirate things during that month. I know you can't stop everyone from doing it - it's not like pirates are innately honest people - but if they see their "goal" of greatly reducing piracy succeed and still see their bottom lines fall out, they might, in actual cost-analysis, realize that the reason they're hurting has nothing to do with torrent sites and more to do with the fact that they've driven people to not want to patronize them in any way.

...which would be nice, but the problem is that we've seen ample evidence that they pay really no attention to all the existing cost-analyses that already say exactly that. I don't think the associations can be "convinced" to back the fuck off, even in the face of their own benefit. They are insane ideologists and the only way to stop them is to remove their ability to actually do anything.

Lottel · « **Reply #421 on:** January 30, 2012, 08:53:34 PM »

Suuuuure but... when does Avengers come out?

Thad · « **Reply #422 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:00:31 PM »

Har.

Yeah, I've actually stuck to my guns and not bought any Kirby-derivative Marvel comics since Bissette first broached the subject. (Aside from a couple issues of Deadpool that guest-starred Captain America, I guess. Because Deadpool is a non-Kirby-derived Marvel character, the book is on my pull list, and I don't check in advance whether any given issue will guest-star a Kirby-derived character.) Haven't seen Captain America, either.

Neal Adams has actually made some rumblings about the situation, with BC speculating that he might have something in mind to coincide with the release of Avengers. For those who don't know, this is reasonable speculation; Adams was instrumental in the bad press against DC, just prior to the release of the Superman movie, that led to them finally agreeing to give Siegel and Shuster a creator credit and a stipend. Whether the same trick will work this century, well...times have changed and I'm a cynic, but I sure hope it does.

Catloaf · « **Reply #423 on:** January 31, 2012, 12:14:47 PM »

Quote from: Thad on January 30, 2012, 07:57:01 PM

And those qualifiers are kind of important, too. Better yet, DO buy music, movies, and games in March. Buy independent ones that aren't affiliated with the MPAA/RIAA/ESA. Buy used ones whose sales don't go to the MPAA/RIAA/ESA. Don't punish the people who aren't part of the problem.

So let's see...
So no (new) games from:
505 Games
Atari
Capcom
Crave Entertainment
Deep Silver
Disney Interactive Studios
Eidos Interactive
Electronic Arts
Epic Games
Her Interactive
Ignition Entertainment
Koei
Konami
Microsoft
MTV Games
Namco Bandai Games
Natsume
Nintendo
Nival America
Nvidia
O-Games
Playlogic Entertainment
Sega
Sony Computer Entertainment
Sony Online Entertainment
SouthPeak Interactive
Square Enix
Take-Two Interactive
THQ
Trion World Network
Ubisoft
Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment
Xseed Games

So... Let's see here.... Only some PC games allowed.

No non-indie music that isn't pre-owned.
And only indie/foreign films.

Various games coming out March: Kid Icarus, Mass Effect 3, Armored Core V, Street Fighter X Tekken, Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon city, Ninja Gaiden 3

Well, only one of which I'm dead-set on getting, and I think I can wait a few more weeks for Icarus.

JDigital · « **Reply #424 on:** January 31, 2012, 11:36:49 PM »

You can still buy Eversion.

Büge · « **Reply #425 on:** February 04, 2012, 08:14:00 AM »

Watching the Super Bowl on a big screen?

STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM

Mongrel · « **Reply #426 on:** February 04, 2012, 09:39:34 AM »

Yeah, there's no bad PR for shutting down a CHURCH PARTY.

Brentai · « **Reply #427 on:** February 04, 2012, 10:24:37 AM »

Breaking down the offending clause (emphasis mine for clarity):

Quote from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/HowCurrent.php/?tn=17&fragid=T17F00015&extid=usc_sec_17_00000110----000-&sourcedate=2010-06-28&proctime=Tue%20Jun%2029%2009:57:25%202010

Title 17 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 7, 2011, and it is this version that is published here.

Quote from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000110----000-.html

110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (concerning the right to make recordings, etc. -B), the following are not infringements of copyright:

[...]

(B) communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission, or, if an audiovisual transmission, by a cable system or satellite carrier, if—
(i) in the case of an establishment other than a food service or drinking establishment, either the establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 2,000 gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication occurs has 2,000 or more gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and—
[...]
(II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;

The

version: You can't have a ton of screens showing an otherwise public broadcast if you're not a sports bar or other kind of restaurant. This is almost certainly because of protectionism, and it'll be interesting to see how the Church reacts when it realizes that its interests are second to the interests of generally small businesses (and a few owned by ESPN).

Actually it'd be clarifying if the article specified what church (or in fact any source at all - we're getting dangerously close to unsubstantiated reporting becoming the norm) to see if it happened to be a little too close to one of the corporate-owned joints. That'd make it easier to see why they'd suddenly give a rat's ass.

Caithness · « **Reply #428 on:** February 04, 2012, 10:47:14 AM »

That story is from 2007. I remember hearing about it from multiple sources at the time.

Thad · « **Reply #429 on:** February 07, 2012, 09:31:08 AM »

Quote from: Thad on December 01, 2011, 02:50:09 PM

Oh hey, it's DMCA Exemption Time again.

Ars says that Public Knowledge is pushing for the right to rip DVD's, and is soliciting messages from people who have examples of occasions when they've been inconvenienced by the ban. I can probably produce a couple. For example, the software for playing DVD's under Linux is illegal.

EFF's pushing for a jailbreaking exemption, and Exhibit A is Sony yanking the OtherOS option. "You can set your PlayStation on fire, but you can’t run Linux on hardware you own."

Oh man that would be delicious if that was the thing that finally convinced the Copyright Office to explicitly allow jailbreaking. Though of course we've been walking down this road for awhile now; last year's set of exemptions allowed jailbreaking on phones, and I commented at the time that it would be awfully difficult to make a case in court that it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPod or iPad.

Caithness · « **Reply #430 on:** February 07, 2012, 10:33:36 AM »

What about jailbreaking a TiVo? If that were ruled legal, would they have to go back to their original business model?

Thad · « **Reply #431 on:** February 07, 2012, 11:12:10 AM »

Jailbreaking a TiVo is a tricky prospect; there's a firmware chip soldered to the board that checks hashes and won't run modified software.

Which is kind of a dick move since the TiVo runs Linux and other GPL'ed software. TiVo, as required under the terms of the GPL, releases its source code back to the community to modify -- but won't actually let anyone USE the modified code on its hardware.

This was the major impetus behind GPLv3: closing the loophole TiVo discovered in v2 where they could allow people to modify the source code without actually allowing them to RUN their own code.

That said, while it may be tricky it's not impossible; as Doctorow noted in the talk I linked earlier in the thread, these boxes aren't actually single-purpose appliances, they're general-purpose computers that have crap installed on them to artificially limit their functionality. TiVo's solution may be difficult to circumvent but it's possible. And if Wikipedia's "citation needed"-filled entry is correct, TiVo HAS threatened hackers with litigation on a few occasions.

That said, if TiVo jailbreaking were made legal, it wouldn't radically change TiVo's business. iPhone jailbreaking is legal, but the vast majority of users don't do it, and Apple uses technical means to try to make it less desirable.

What's the bit in Matrix 2 about how when the machines tried to completely subjugate the humans, they rebelled, but when they gave them the CHOICE to fight, the vast majority chose submission?

Thad · « **Reply #432 on:** February 08, 2012, 10:30:22 AM »

Letters to the Copyright Office: Why I Jailbreak

Features a deaf man who needs video relay software, a soldier who uses his button as a one-button flashlight, and a nurse who uses third-party software to access patient data. Pretty good examples, I'd say; hopefully they convince The Powers That Be.

(via)

Thad · « **Reply #433 on:** February 09, 2012, 07:17:33 AM »

Welp, HERE'S something completely fucking horrible: Marvel Demands $17,000 For Gary Friedrich’s Ghost Rider Prints

Quote

Recently, Marvel triumphed in court against Gary Friedrich, the creator of Ghost Rider, as to whether any moneys or rights were owed to him from the use of the characters in movies, with the second movie starring Nicolas Cage on its way.

And while the court decided that Marvel owe Gary nothing, they also decided on a counter claim from Marvel, that Gary Friedrich owes $17,000 for selling prints of the Ghost Rider character at conventions and the like.

This represents Gary’s earnings from selling such prints over several years – but now Gary is penniless. And Marvel are demanding payment now. Oh, and that he is not allowed to say he is the creator of Ghost Rider for financial gain, say by doing an interview, in the future.

Now, what the article doesn't mention, according to one of the commenters, is that Friedrich was selling unauthorized Ghost Rider prints -- which weren't even of his own art. But even granting that he fucked up and they had every right to smack him down for that, this is wildly excessive and it's hard to see it as anything other than retaliation for his lawsuit.

I've never seen anything like this. Marvel is not exactly known for treating its creators fairly, but I've never heard of them completely grinding somebody into the dirt like this before. I've never even heard of ARCHIE being this vindictive.

The motivation is clear: it's a warning. "Any more artists have any bright ideas? This is what happens when you fuck with the Mouse."

Thad · « **Reply #434 on:** February 09, 2012, 10:41:51 AM »

On the subject of royalties:

Quote from: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/02/why-dont-more-game-developers-see-royalties-from-their-work.ars

When people talk about the importance of actually spending money on games, rather than resorting to a used purchase or piracy, the importance of "supporting the developers" is never far from the argument. Yet for a lot of classic titles being repackaged and sold these days, money from new purchases isn't going to the developers at all, but solely to the publishers that own the long-term rights to the titles.

Freelance developer Simon Roth decided to see just how deep this problem goes. He started digging around on Google and talking to his colleagues to determine which developers, if any, were actually receiving a cut of the continuing profits on their work. Last week, he published the results of his research, a list of over 200 classic titles that are currently being sold by publishers without any of the new income going to the actual developers that made the game.

Not surprising, but eye-opening.

Shinra · « **Reply #435 on:** February 09, 2012, 10:49:51 AM »

the moral of the story is that if you really want to support the developers, pirate it and send them a check.

Thad · « **Reply #436 on:** February 13, 2012, 08:52:10 AM »

Doctorow: BitTorrent doesn't hurt US box-office, delayed international releases drive downloading

The study he cites is Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office Sales, by Brett Danaher of Wellesley and Joel Waldfogel of UMinn Twin Cities.

Mongrel · « **Reply #437 on:** February 13, 2012, 09:25:51 AM »

Honestly, in the world of digital distribution, wide-margined staggered international release dates ARE pretty stupid.

Niku · « **Reply #438 on:** February 13, 2012, 09:30:14 AM »

Remember, Sherlock series 2 is premiering in May!

Lottel · « **Reply #439 on:** February 13, 2012, 10:03:49 AM »

The UK just got The Muppets a few weeks before DVDs hit the shelves.

News:

Author Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law (Read 58728 times)