It could be cleverly disguised as a bit of MD5 but is actually something encrypted with a 33 character one time pad.

Well if the movie studios had their way, you wouldn't be able to rent movies cheaply on disc either. They have no interest in customer satisfaction, convenience, or affordability.

This technique works best when combined with cold fusion. Also, don't forget about step 3.

You mean like the frosted glass commonly used for bathroom windows and shower doors? I see this as being a form of image processing that will rapidly be perfected.

Sigh.

No, publicity rights are a branch of state tort law. Copyrights are a sui generis branch of federal law.

And a copyright release is just a copyright license (or more rarely, an assignment), which means that it pertains to a particular creative work. A publicity release has to do with using someone's face, image, statements, etc. While you could conceivably have them both in the same form, it's rare that you'd need to or want to.

And I assure you, they are not related even the teeniest tiniest bit. Not in their policy goals, or how they originated, or which governments created them, or who gets them, or how long they last, or what they cover. There is no commonality.

Are you too lazy to google for the difference between copyrights and publicity rights? Perhaps this web page from the Library of Congress will help you out: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/co...

Copyright law is utterly unrelated to publicity rights. You're just stringing words together.

No, not quite.

A mere performance, by itself, is not copyrightable. In order to be copyrightable, a performance must be fixed in a tangible medium. This always raises the question of whether the person doing the fixation is the actual author, or at least a joint author, with equal rights in the work. Basically it hinges on creativity. If the actor is in charge of their own costuming, lighting, cinematography, and direction, and everyone else is just following orders like a robot, with no creative input, and we set aside issues of works made for hire, then yes, the actor would be the sole author of the film. But if the actor isn't in charge of everything which, along with the performance, is being filmed, then they may be only one of many authors, and if it's the actor who is following orders like a robot, the actor may not have contributed any sort of authorship at all.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony is what you'll want to take a look at.

Got some cases you can cite for that?

And publicity and privacy rights, which are what you get releases for, are not copyrights. They are not even vaguely related.

They may not even need any fine print. Accepting compensation can affect your right to seek damages later.

I never even said a word about the lawyers making money. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else?

Everyone needs many lawyers at all stages.

More seriously, a child -- even a stupid child -- could tell that Snowden faces legal threats, among other threats. It's not foolish of him to consult with lawyers. Besides, you think there are no lawyers out to get him?

Who would want a six digit Slashdot ID? How dreadful!

I believe that the episode you're thinking of was Time Flight. They put the TARDIS aboard a Concorde and flew 140 million years into the past.

Plus don't forget that the domestic telephone network exists nationwide. Even if airlines were magically exempt, telephones still could be regulated.

Hey, I'm totally happy with getting rid of as many jobs as possible through automation, so long as people still get paid enough to live comfortably. The leisure society is where it's at.