Comment Re:Surprise surprise, they lied and it's still the (Score 1) 168
FWIW, BMW is a budget brand these days
FWIW, BMW is a budget brand these days
Humans are not 100% efficient? I can't believe it, I mean we're all statistical robots are heart... Right? Right...???
Please give this tainted "butter" to some needy 3rd-world shiathole. I will feel better in my mansion.
I can guarantee you that none of these companies will be in business in 20 years.
Go buy yourself a Raspbery Pi, download the boot-image for Rasbmc, boot it up, go have a coffee and a sandwich.
When you get back -- you'll have all the TV and movies you could want -- for the cost of your monthly internet connection.
If Netflix was available here, I'd pay for it -- but since it's not (legally) available to NZers, I figure that the movie/TV producers don't want my money and use XBMC instead. I'm not going to force them to take my cash if they don't want it -- but they better not complain about the fact that I'm watching their stuff for free in the meantime.
I can walk into a physical store 2 miles from my house, drop 5 bucks for a movie, and if I bring it back within 24 hrs, I get 4 bucks back.
Why can't I just pay $1
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.
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.
This is a game where you're constantly presented with a legion of things to do, numbers to increase, boxes to tick, things to collect, factions to impress, points to earn, monsters air-dropped in to battle without warning and/or preferably all of the above simultaneously.
So this is the most job-like game on the internet?? Awesome! Sign me up.
Less facetiously, I didn't think the answer to the common complaint of, "We're sick of killing 10 generic monsters to collect 5 generic trophies to advance a quest" was, "Here's more stuff to grind!"
There have been some successes along the way, like genetic tests for warfarin dosage, but for the most part our gains in understanding of basic biology haven't been matched by clinical advances.
If you're spending thousands of dollars for genetic testing for a $4 a month drug like warfarin, you're doing it way wrong. It's like the proverbial million dollar cure for the common cold. You could either use one of the newer warfarin alternatives with more consistent pharmacokinetic profiles at a higher price or use the old tried-and-true trial and error dosing.
Either way, you're still doing weekly to monthly lab testing for warfarin dosing. And your warfarin effectiveness (or bleeding risk) is still going to be thrown way off if you vary your diet significantly or start new medications.
A much better example of genomic medicine payoff would be targeting therapies to specific cancer types, like the EGFR receptor mutations in some varieties of lung cancer.
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.
A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed.
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.
Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance.
Got some cases you can cite for that?
Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*.
And publicity and privacy rights, which are what you get releases for, are not copyrights. They are not even vaguely related.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome