Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Physical Stores (Score 3, Insightful) 323

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 /movie to stream any video I want whenever I want?

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.

Comment: Re: In before... (Score 5, Informative) 321

by cpt kangarooski (#46354057) Attached to: Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube

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...

Comment: Re:Dangerous precedent (Score 1) 321

by cpt kangarooski (#46353541) Attached to: Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube

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.

Comment: Re:In before... (Score 4, Interesting) 321

by cpt kangarooski (#46353423) Attached to: Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube

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.

Comment: Re:Is Snowden being tried? (Score 4, Insightful) 261

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?

Comment: Re:"rare earths" (Score 1) 251

But ours are all stuck at the bottom of a big gravity well. Materials mined on the moon, or better yet, nearby asteroids, are not. They could be sent down to us as raw materials to be turned into finished goods here, but alternatively we could begin to industrialize space.

There are plenty of plans on the books for building solar power arrays that could send power down to us cleanly, for example. It's too expensive to build them with parts that come from the Earth, but it might be more practical with parts that didn't.

Comment: Re:Space 1999, Sorta (Score 1) 251

How could that have possibly happened, given that in 1994, a runaway planet hurtled between the Earth and the Moon, breaking the moon into two big chunks, unleashing cosmic destruction, and casting man's civilization into ruin.

And while it would be good to get rid of mining operations on Earth, replacing it with space mining, the main advantage of mining in space is that you do not need to use a giant rocket to get that stuff into space; it's already up there, and can be used for industrial purposes in situ.

"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed." -- Robin, The Boy Wonder

Working...